ReviewPediatric research2016
Comparing apples with apples: it is time for standardized reporting of neonatal nutrition and growth studies.
Review in Pediatric research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
59 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Standardised versus Individualised Fortification of Expressed Breastmilk for Preterm Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Neonatology · 2026Pooled it
- Human milk composition and infant anthropometrics: overview of a systematic review with clinical and research implications.International breastfeeding journal · 2024Pooled it
- Exposure to the smell and taste of milk to accelerate feeding in preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Human Milk Feeding and Short-Term Growth in Preterm and Very Low Birth Weight Infants.Nutrients · 2021Pooled it
- Exposure to the smell and taste of milk to accelerate feeding in preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- A novel human milk fortifier supports adequate growth in very low birth weight infants: a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition · 2025Trial
- Neurodevelopmental Outcome in Very Preterm Infants Randomised to Receive Two Different Standardised, Concentrated Parenteral Nutrition Regimens.Nutrients · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Percent Body Fat Content Measured by Plethysmography in Infants Randomized to High- or Usual-Volume Feeding after Very Preterm Birth.The Journal of pediatrics · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Osmolality of fortified human milk with contemporary human milk fortifiers.Nutrition in clinical practice : official publication of the American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition · 2026Article
- The influence of nutrition on white matter development in preterm infants: a scoping review.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Standardised reporting framework for nutrition and growth in preterm nutrition studies: the NutriGrow Delphi study.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Impact of early neonatal nutrition on neurodevelopment and the limbic system in very low birth weight infants.The British journal of nutrition · 2026Observational
- Bovine colostrum as a human milk fortifier for very preterm infants with slow feeding advancement: a randomized controlled trial.Pediatric research · 2026Article
- Measures of nutrition intake and growth reported in preterm nutrition studies: A scoping review.JPEN. Journal of parenteral and enteral nutrition · 2025Article
- Postnatal Growth Assessment of the Very-Low-Birth-Weight Preterm Infant.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Effects of Early Enteral to Parenteral Protein Ratios on Brain Volume and Somatic Growth in Very Low Birth Weight Infants.The Journal of pediatrics · 2024Article
- The impact of exclusive human milk diet on short-term growth of very preterm infants.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024Article
- Article
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
The ultimate goal of neonatal nutrition care is optimal growth, neurodevelopment, and long-term health for preterm babies. International consensus is that increased energy and protein intakes in the neonatal period improve growth and neurodevelopment, but after more than 100 y of research the optimum intakes of energy and protein remain unknown. We suggest an important factor contributing to the lack of progress is the lack of a standardized approach to reporting nutritional intake data and growth in the neonatal literature. We reviewed randomized controlled trials and observational studies documented in MEDLINE and the Web of Science from 2008 to 2015 that compared approximately 3 vs. 4 g.kg(-1).d(-1) protein for preterm babies in the first month after birth. Consistency might be expected in the calculation of nutritional intake and assessment of growth outcomes in this relatively narrow scope of neonatal nutrition research. Twenty-two studies were reviewed. There was substantial variation in methods used to estimate and calculate nutritional intakes and in the approaches used in reporting these intakes and measures of infant growth. Such variability makes comparisons amongst studies difficult and meta-analysis unreliable. We propose the StRONNG Checklist-Standardized Reporting Of Neonatal Nutrition and Growth to address these issues.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26866908What 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.