Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26630252›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015

Alternative lipid emulsions versus pure soy oil based lipid emulsions for parenterally fed preterm infants.

Vishal Kapoor, Rebecca Glover, Manoj N Malviya

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03275090 (The Effects of Two Different Intravenous Lipid Emulsions on the Outcomes of Preterm Infants With Sepsis), which is not on this map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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.

NCT03275090 phase4completednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

The Effects of Two Different Intravenous Lipid Emulsions on the Outcomes of Preterm Infants With Sepsis: a Randomized Pilot Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorMansoura University Children HospitalRan2016 to 2017Enrolled40ConditionsSepsis NewbornArmsSmoflipid ®
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Lipid emulsions for parenterally fed preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Lipid emulsions for parenterally fed term and late preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Effects of Fish Oil (SMOFlipidMedeniyet medical journal · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Multi-component lipid emulsion vs soy-based lipid emulsion for very low birth weight preterm neonates: A pre-post comparative study.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2019
    Article
  11. Can mixed lipid emulsion prevent parenteral nutrition associated cholestasis?Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2019
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Observational
  16. A Neonatologist's Perspective: Is the Quest for an "Ideal" Lipid Emulsion Over?JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2018
    Review
  17. The progress of prophylactic treatment in retinopathy of prematurity.International journal of ophthalmology · 2018
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Emerging Clinical Benefits of New-Generation Fat Emulsions in Preterm Neonates.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2017
    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 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Vishal KapoorDepartment of Paediatrics, Redland Hospital, Weippin Street, Cleveland, Queensland, Australia, 4163.
Rebecca Glover
Manoj N Malviya
John Hunter Children's Hospital · AUKhoula Hospital · OMQueensland Children’s Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe pure soybean oil based lipid emulsions (S-LE) conventionally used for parenteral nutrition (PN) in preterm infants have high polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) content. The newer lipid emulsions (LE) from alternative lipid sources with reduced PUFA content may improve clinical outcomes in preterm infants.

objectivesTo determine the safety and efficacy of the newer alternative LE compared with the conventional S-LE for PN in preterm infants. SEARCH

methodsWe used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG) to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to 31 July 2015), EMBASE (1947 to 31 July 2015), CINAHL (1982 to 31 July 2015), Web of Science (31 July 2015), conference proceedings, trial registries (clinicaltrials.gov, controlled-trials.com, WHO's ICTRP), and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in preterm infants (< 37 weeks), comparing newer alternative LE with S-LE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data collection and analysis conformed to the methods of the CNRG. We assessed the quality of evidence for important outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, in addition to reporting the conventional statistical significance of results. MAIN

resultsFifteen studies (N = 979 infants) are included in this review. Alternative LE including medium chain triglycerides/long chain triglycerides (MCT/LCT) LE (3 studies; n = 108), MCT-olive-fish-soy oil-LE (MOFS-LE; 7 studies; n = 469), MCT-fish-soy oil-LE (MFS-LE; 1 study; n = 60), olive-soy oil-LE (OS-LE; 7 studies; n = 406), and borage-soy oil-LE (BS-LE; 1 study; n = 34) were compared with S-LE. The different LE were also considered together to compare 'all fish oil containing-LE' versus S-LE (7 studies; n = 499) and 'all alternative LE' versus S-LE (15 studies; n = 979). Some studies had multiple intervention arms and were included in more than one comparison. No study compared pure fish oil-LE or structured-LE to S-LE.The GRADE quality of evidence (GRADE QoE) ranged from 'low' to 'very low.' Evidence came mostly from small single centre studies, many focusing on biochemical aspects as their primary outcomes, with optimal information size not achieved for the important clinical outcomes in any comparison.In the primary outcomes of the review there was a pooled effect towards decreased bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in OS-LE vs S-LE (4 studies, n = 261) not reaching statistical significance (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.04, I² = 32%; typical risk difference (RD) -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.00, I² = 76%; GRADE QoE: 'very low'). No difference in BPD was observed in any other comparison. There were no statistically significant differences in the primary outcomes of death, growth rate (g/kg/day) or days to regain birth weight in any comparison.Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) stage 1-2 was reported to be statistically significantly lower in one single centre study (n = 80) in the MOFS-LE group compared with the S-LE group (1/40 vs 12/40, respectively; RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.61; RD -0.27, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.12; number needed to benefit (NNTB) 4, 95% CI 2 to 8). However there were no statistically significant differences in the secondary outcome of ROP ≥ stage 3 in any of the individual studies or in any comparison (GRADE QoE: 'low' to 'very low'). No other study reported on ROP stages 1 and 2 separately.There were no statistically significant differences in the secondary outcomes of sepsis, PN associated liver disease (PNALD)/cholestasis, ventilation duration, necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) ≥ stage 2, jaundice requiring treatment, intraventricular haemorrhage grade III-IV, periventricular leukomalacia (PVL), patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), hypertriglyceridaemia, and hyperglycaemia in any comparison.No study reported on neurodevelopmental outcomes or essential fatty acid deficiency. AUTHORS'

conclusionsAll lipid emulsions in this review appeared to be safe and were well tolerated in preterm infants. Compared with the pure soy oil based LE, use of MOFS-LE was associated with a decrease in the early stages (1-2) of ROP in one study. However there were no statistically significant differences in clinically important outcomes including death, growth, BPD, sepsis, ROP ≥ stage 3, and PNALD with the use of newer alternative LE versus the conventional pure soy oil based LE (GRADE QoE ranged from 'low' to 'very low'). Currently there is insufficient evidence to recommend any alternative LE over S-LE or vice versa in preterm infants.Larger randomised studies focusing on important clinical outcomes, targeting specific 'at risk' population subgroups (e.g. extreme prematurity, long term PN, etc), and exploring the effect of different proportions of lipid constituents are required to evaluate the effectiveness of newer lipid emulsions compared with the conventional pure soy based LE in preterm infants.

Indexed as

Infant, PrematureBronchopulmonary DysplasiaEmulsionsFatty Acids, UnsaturatedFish Oilsgamma-Linolenic AcidHumansInfant, NewbornLipidsOlive OilParenteral NutritionPlant OilsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRetinopathy of PrematuritySoybean OilTriglyceridesborage oilEmulsionsFatty Acids, UnsaturatedFish Oilsgamma-Linolenic AcidLipidsOlive OilPlant OilsSoybean OilTriglycerides

Identifiers

PMID26630252
PMCPMC7195185
OpenAlexW2215826568

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.