Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29238605›Full record

ReviewMaternal health, neonatology and perinatology2017

Docosahexaenoic acid and the preterm infant.

Stephanie L Smith, Christopher A Rouse

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Maternal health, neonatology and perinatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

2 authors.

Stephanie L SmithUniformed Services University of Health Sciences, 4301 Jones Bridge, Bethesda, MD 20814 USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1267-3387
Christopher A RouseUniformed Services University of Health Sciences, 4301 Jones Bridge, Bethesda, MD 20814 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is a long chain poly-unsaturated fatty acid (LCPUFA) that has a role in the cognitive and visual development, as well as in the immune function of newborns. Premature infants are typically deficient in DHA for several reasons, to include fetal accretion of DHA that typically occurs during the third trimester. These premature infants are reliant on enteral sources of DHA, most commonly through breast milk. The DHA content in breast milk varies in direct correlation with maternal DHA intake and mothers consuming a Western diet typically have lower levels of DHA in their breast milk. Maternal DHA supplementation and direct supplementation of DHA to the infant has been tried successfully but there are still conflicting results on the optimal dosage and method of delivery of DHA to the infant. This has led to inconsistent results in trials evaluating the effects of DHA supplementation to the preterm infant in terms of cognitive and immunological outcomes. While short-term benefits have been seen in several studies, long-term benefits are not consistent. Future studies continue to be needed to optimize DHA intake in our premature infants.

Indexed as

Breast milkDHA supplementationDocosahexaenoic acidInflammationNeurodevelopmentPreterm infants

Identifiers

PMID29238605
PMCPMC5725938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.