SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008
Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Trial
- A quality improvement initiative to reduce necrotizing enterocolitis across hospital systems.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2018Article
- Prevention and early recognition of necrotizing enterocolitis: a tale of 2 tools--eNEC and GutCheckNEC.Advances in neonatal care : official journal of the National Association of Neonatal Nurses · 2014Article
- The impact of feeding interval on feeding outcomes in very low birth-weight infants.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2011Article
- Red blood cell transfusion, feeding and necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2011Article
- Effects of light exposure on total parenteral nutrition and its implications in the neonatal population.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
- Update of
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe major modifiable risk factors for necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants relate to enteral feeding regimens. Observational studies suggest that conservative feeding regimens such as delaying the introduction of enteral feeds or slowly advancing feed volumes reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis
objectivesTo determine the effect of slow rates of enteral feed advancement on the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis, mortality and other morbidities in very low birth weight infants. SEARCH STRATEGY: The standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Group was used. Searches were made of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 - December 2007), EMBASE (1980 - December 2007), CINAHL (1982- December 2007), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of slow (up to 24 ml/kg/day) versus faster rates of advancement of enteral feed volumes upon the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Group were used, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two authors. Data were synthesised using a fixed effects model and reported using typical relative risk, typical risk difference and weighted mean difference. MAIN
resultsThree randomised controlled trials in which a total of 396 infants participated were identified. Few participants were extremely low birth weight or growth restricted. The trials were generally of good methodological quality but caregivers and investigators were aware of the allocated interventions. Meta-analyses did not detect statistically significant effects on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis [typical relative risk 0.96 (95% confidence interval 0.48 to 1.92); typical risk difference 0.00 (95% confidence interval -0.05 to 0.05)] or all cause mortality [typical relative risk 1.40 (95% confidence interval 0.71 to 2.80); typical risk difference 0.03 (95% confidence interval -0.03 to 0.10)]. Infants who had slow rates of feed volume advancement took longer to regain birth weight [reported median difference between two and five days] and to establish full enteral feeding [reported median difference between three and five days]. No statistically significant effect on the total duration of hospital stay was detected. AUTHORS'
conclusionsThe currently available data do not provide evidence that slow advancement of enteral feed volumes reduces the risk of necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. Increasing the volume of enteral feeds at slow rather than faster rates results in several days delay in regaining birth weight and establishing full enteral feeds but the long-term clinical importance of these effects is unclear. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to determine how the rate of daily increment in enteral feed volumes affects important clinical outcomes in very low birth weight infants, and particularly in extremely low birth weight or growth restricted infants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.