Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25770256›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2015

A systematic review of controlled trials of lower-protein or energy-containing infant formulas for use by healthy full-term infants.

Steven A Abrams, Keli M Hawthorne, Mohan Pammi

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Higher versus lower protein intake in formula-fed term infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    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. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Steven A AbramsUSDA/Agricultural Research Service, Children's Nutrition Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, and sabrams@bcm.edu.
Keli M HawthorneUSDA/Agricultural Research Service, Children's Nutrition Research Center, Department of Pediatrics, and.
Mohan PammiSection of Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX.
Agricultural Research Service · USBaylor College of Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Infant formulas have historically been developed based on providing macronutrients at intake concentrations approximately matching the composition of human milk. In most countries, targets of 1.4-1.5 g of protein/dL and 20 kcal/oz (67-68 kcal/dL) have been set as the protein and energy concentrations for formulas during the first year of life, although this may be an overestimation of these contents. Recent introduction of lower-protein and -energy formulas in full-term infants led us to systematically review the literature for its effects on growth. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, our inclusion criteria were studies that enrolled healthy full-term infants and evaluated lower-protein or lower-energy formula, reported anthropometric outcomes including weight and length, and followed infants for at least 6 mo. Six studies were eligible for inclusion. These studies varied in the content of nutrients provided in the intervention and control groups, by additional dietary components in the study groups, and the timing and length of the intervention, which limit their usefulness for interpreting newly introduced lower-protein and -energy formulas in the United States. These studies suggest adequate growth during infancy and early childhood with infant formulas with concentrations of protein and energy slightly below historical standards in the United States. Further long-term research is needed to assess the impact of the use of lower-protein and/or lower-energy products, especially for nutritionally at-risk populations such as preterm infants and infants who are born small for gestational age.

Indexed as

Diet, Protein-RestrictedEnergy IntakeGrowthInfant FormulaInfant Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaDietary ProteinsHumansInfantMilk, HumanUnited StatesDietary Proteinschild growthdevelopmentinfant formulalactationobesity preventionprotein requirements

Identifiers

PMID25770256
PMCPMC4352176
OpenAlexW2166263188

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.