Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31542771›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2019

The WHEAT pilot trial-WithHolding Enteral feeds Around packed red cell Transfusion to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in preterm neonates: a multicentre, electronic patient record (EPR), randomised controlled point-of-care pilot trial.

Chris Gale, Neena Modi, Sena Jawad, Lucy Culshaw, Jon Dorling, Ursula Bowler, Amanda Forster, Andy King, Jenny McLeish, Louise Linsell and 5 more

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. [Expert consensus on enteral nutrition management for preterm infants in special situations (2024)].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

15 authors.

Chris GaleNeonatal Medicine, School of Public Health, Chelsea and Westminster campus, Imperial College London, London, UK christopher.gale@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-0707-876X
Neena ModiNeonatal Medicine, School of Public Health, Chelsea and Westminster campus, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Sena JawadNeonatal Medicine, School of Public Health, Chelsea and Westminster campus, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Lucy CulshawBliss - The National Charity for the Newborn, London, UK.
Jon DorlingDivision of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Ursula BowlerClinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Oxford, UK.
Amanda ForsterNeonatal Unit, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough, UK.
Andy KingClinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Oxford, UK.
Jenny McLeishNuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Oxford, UK.
Louise LinsellClinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Oxford, UK.
Mark A TurnerWomen's and Children's Health, Institute of Translational Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Helen RobbertsParent of Preterm Twins, Bliss - The National Charity for the Newborn, London, UK.
Kayleigh StanburyClinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Oxford, UK.
Tjeerd van StaaCentre for Health Informatics, Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Science, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Ed JuszczakClinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N008405/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNecrotising enterocolitis (NEC) is a potentially devastating neonatal disease. A temporal association between red cell transfusion and NEC is well described. Observational data suggest that withholding enteral feeds around red cell transfusions may reduce the risk of NEC but this has not been tested in randomised trials; current UK practice varies. Prevention of NEC is a research priority but no appropriately powered trials have addressed this question. The use of a simplified opt-out consent model and embedding trial processes within existing electronic patient record (EPR) systems provide opportunities to increase trial efficiency and recruitment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will undertake a randomised, controlled, multicentre, unblinded, pilot trial comparing two care pathways: continuing milk feeds (before, during and after red cell transfusions) and withholding milk feeds (for 4 hours before, during and for 4 hours after red cell transfusions), with infants randomly assigned with equal probability. We will use opt-out consent. A nested qualitative study will explore parent and health professional views. Infants will be eligible if born at <30+0 gestational weeks+days. Primary feasibility outcomes will be rate of recruitment, opt-out, retention, compliance, data completeness and data accuracy; clinical outcomes will include mortality and NEC. The trial will recruit in two neonatal networks in England for 9 months. Data collection will continue until all infants have reached 40+0 corrected gestational weeks or neonatal discharge. Participant identification and recruitment, randomisation and all trial data collection will be embedded within existing neonatal EPR systems (BadgerNet and BadgerEPR); outcome data will be extracted from routinely recorded data held in the National Neonatal Research Database. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study holds Research Ethics Committee approval to use an opt-out approach to consent. Results will inform future EPR-embedded and data-enabled trials and will be disseminated through conferences, publications and parent-centred information. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN62501859; Pre-results.

Indexed as

Enteral NutritionErythrocyte TransfusionElectronic Health RecordsEnterocolitis, NecrotizingHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureMulticenter Studies as TopicPilot ProjectsPoint-of-Care SystemsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicblood bank & transfusion medicineelectronic patient recordsneonatologyNNRDpreterm infantrandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID31542771
PMCPMC6756449

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.