Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21546942›Full record

Trial reportJournal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association2012

Probiotics-supplemented feeding in extremely low-birth-weight infants.

M Al-Hosni, M Duenas, M Hawk, L A Stewart, R A Borghese, M Cahoon, L Atwood, D Howard, K Ferrelli, R Soll

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 64 papers, 28 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
64citing papers in PubMed, 28 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

64 citing papers in PubMed, 28 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. [Efficacy of probiotics in preventing late-onset sepsis in very low birth weight infants: a Meta analysis].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2021
    Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Guideline
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Systematic Review of the Effect of Enteral Feeding on Gut Microbiota in Preterm Infants.Journal of obstetric, gynecologic, and neonatal nursing : JOGNN · 2018
    Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

4 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

M Al-HosniDepartment of Pediatrics, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA. alhosnim@slu.edu
M Duenas
M Hawk
L A Stewart
R A Borghese
M Cahoon
L Atwood
D Howard
K Ferrelli
R Soll
St. John Hospital & Medical Center · USUniversity of Vermont Medical Center · USBoston Children's Hospital · USCardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center · USSaint Louis University · USUC Davis Children's Hospital · USUniversity of Vermont · USVermont Oxford Network · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this trial was to test whether probiotic-supplemented feeding to extremely low-birth-weight (ELBW) infants will improve growth as determined by decreasing the percentage of infants with weight below the 10th percentile at 34 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA). Other important outcome measures, such as improving feeding tolerance determined by tolerating larger volume of feeding per day and reducing antimicrobial treatment days during the first 28 days from the initiation of feeding supplementation were also evaluated. STUDY

designWe conducted a multicenter randomized controlled double-blinded clinical study. The probiotics-supplementation (PS) group received Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium infantis added to the first enteral feeding and continued once daily with feedings thereafter until discharge or until 34 weeks (PMA). The control (C) group received unsupplemented feedings. Infant weight and feeding volumes were recorded daily during the first 28 days of study period. Weights were also recorded at 34 weeks PMA.

resultA total of 101 infants were enrolled (PS 50 versus C 51). There was no difference between the two groups in the percentage of infants with weight below the 10th percentile at 34 weeks PMA (PS group 58% versus C group 60%, (P value 0.83)) or in the average volume of feeding during 28 days after study entry (PS group 59  ml  kg(-1) versus C group 71  ml  kg(-1), (P value 0.11)). Calculated growth velocity was higher in the PS group compared with the C group (14.9 versus 12.6  g per day, (P value 0.05)). Incidences of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), as well as mortality were similar between the two groups.

conclusionAlthough probiotic-supplemented feedings improve growth velocity in ELBW infants, there was no improvement in the percentage of infants with growth delay at 34 weeks PMA. There were no probiotic-related adverse events reported.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsInfant, Extremely Low Birth WeightAcademic Medical CentersBifidobacteriumBirth WeightDouble-Blind MethodFemaleGestational AgeHumansInfant, NewbornIntensive Care Units, NeonatalMalePilot ProjectsProbioticsProspective StudiesStreptococcaceae

Identifiers

PMID21546942
OpenAlexW1968086572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.