ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2015
Estimating the dietary intake of breastfeeding preterm infants.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oral care with human milk is associated with increased human milk feeding and breastfeeding for newborns with critical congenital heart disease.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Dietary intake of Aboriginal Australian children aged 6-36 months in a remote community: a cross-sectional study.Nutrition journal · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo determine how accurately the daily prescribed feed volume (mL/day) estimates the actual intake of breastfeeding preterm infants and to characterise the volume taken during a breastfeed at differing gestational and postmenstrual ages.
methodsA cross sectional study was conducted on preterm infants born <37 weeks gestation from two Australian neonatal units. To determine the volume taken in a 24-h period infants were weighed before and after each breastfeed. This volume was added to the charted intake to determine the total intake and then compared to the prescribed feed volume. Bland Altman analyses were used to assess the level of agreement between the two methods.
resultsFifty six infants were studied on 206 breastfeeding occasions. There was a small bias (27 mLs/day) but large 95% limits of agreement (-76 to 130 mL/day). The volume taken during a single breastfeed ranged from 0 to 101 mL (median 23 mL, IQR 9 to 31 mL) and was greater in more mature infants.
conclusionsUsing the prescribed feed volume to estimate total intake has limited clinical utility for the individual infant, however the relatively small bias means that it may be useful within a population or for comparison between groups in which population means are compared. There was a large variation in volume taken during a breastfeed across all gestational and postmenstrual ages.
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.