Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25452221›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2014

Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants.

Jessie Morgan, Lauren Young, William McGuire

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Rapid gut growth but persistent delay in digestive function in the postnatal period of preterm pigs.American journal of physiology. Gastrointestinal and liver physiology · 2016
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jessie MorganHull York Medical School & Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Lauren Young
William McGuire
University of York · GBMercy Hospital for Women · AU

Funding

Department of Health 13/89/12
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly enteral feeding practices are potentially modifiable risk factors for necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. Observational studies suggest that conservative feeding regimens, including slowly advancing enteral feed volumes, reduce the risk of necrotising enterocolitis. However, slow feed advancement may delay establishment of full enteral feeding and be associated with metabolic and infectious morbidities secondary to prolonged exposure to parenteral nutrition.

objectivesTo determine the effect of slow rates of enteral feed advancement on the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis, mortality, and other morbidities in very preterm or VLBW infants. SEARCH

methodsWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group Specialised Register. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL (to September 2014), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed the effect of slow (up to 24 ml/kg per day) versus faster rates of advancement of enteral feed volumes upon the incidence of necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or VLBW infants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and undertook data extraction. We analysed the treatment effects in the individual trials and reported the risk ratio and risk difference for dichotomous data and mean difference for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals. We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored the potential causes of heterogeneity in sensitivity analyses. MAIN

resultsWe identified six randomised controlled trials in which a total of 618 infants participated. Most participants were stable preterm infants of birth weight between 1000 g and 1500 g. Few participants were extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight, or growth-restricted. The trials typically defined slow advancement as daily increments of 15 ml/kg to 20 ml/kg and faster advancement as 30 ml/kg to 35 ml/kg. Meta-analyses did not detect statistically significant effects on the risk of necrotising enterocolitis (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55 to 1.70) or all-cause mortality (typical RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.70). Infants who had slow advancement took significantly longer to regain birth weight (reported median differences 2 to 6 days) and to establish full enteral feeding (1 to 5 days). AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe available trial data suggest that advancing enteral feed volumes at daily increments of 30 ml/kg to 35 ml/kg does not increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis in very preterm or VLBW infants. Advancing the volume of enteral feeds at slow rates resulted in several days delay in regaining birth weight and establishing full enteral feeds. The applicability of these findings to extremely preterm, extremely low birth weight, or growth-restricted infants is limited. Further randomised controlled trials in these populations may be warranted to resolve this uncertainty.

Indexed as

Infant, Very Low Birth WeightEnteral NutritionEnterocolitis, NecrotizingHumansInfant, Low Birth WeightInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureInfant, Premature, DiseasesParenteral NutritionRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID25452221
OpenAlexW4238471394

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.