Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32342857›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2020

Two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the SIFT RCT.

Jon Dorling, Oliver Hewer, Madeleine Hurd, Vasha Bari, Beth Bosiak, Ursula Bowler, Andrew King, Louise Linsell, David Murray, Omar Omar and 19 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

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

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

  1. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Dilemmas in establishing preterm enteral feeding: where do we start and how fast do we go?Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

29 authors at 14 institutions in 2 countries.

Jon DorlingDivision of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1691-3221
Oliver HewerNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6251-7174
Madeleine HurdNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2797-2358
Vasha BariNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8183-2455
Beth BosiakWomen's College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6856-879X
Ursula BowlerNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0100-0155
Andrew KingNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7175-2718
Louise LinsellNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3205-6511
David MurrayNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9010-2905
Omar OmarBirmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7582-8337
Christopher PartlettNottingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5139-3412
Catherine RoundingNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1376-7572
John TownendNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5455-2562
Jane AbbottBliss, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5847-6824
Janet BerringtonNewcastle Neonatal Service, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6185-2843
Elaine BoyleDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5038-3148
Nicholas EmbletonNewcastle Neonatal Service, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3750-5566
Samantha JohnsonDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8963-7881
Alison LeafNational Institute for Health Research Southampton Biomedical Research Centre Department of Child Health, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6068-7188
Kenny McCormickJohn Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8378-2690
William McGuireCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8572-3467
Mehali PatelBliss, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6824-0551
Tracy RobertsSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0624-0537
Ben StensonThe Simpson Centre for Reproductive Health, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2645-7458
Warda TahirSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4410-1757
Mark MonahanSchool of Health and Population Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1175-9421
Judy RichardsInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1287-5923
Judith RankinInstitute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5355-454X
Edmund JuszczakNational Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5500-2247
University of Oxford · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBBliss · GBNewcastle University · GBRoyal Victoria Infirmary · GBUniversity of Leicester · GBCancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit · GBDalhousie University · CAEdinburgh Royal Infirmary · GBJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBNational Institute for Health Research · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GBUniversity of York · GBWomen's College Hospital · CA

Funding

Department of Health 11/01/25Medical Research Council MR/K02325X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundObservational data suggest that slowly advancing enteral feeds in preterm infants may reduce necrotising enterocolitis but increase late-onset sepsis. The Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT) compared two rates of feed advancement.

objectiveTo determine if faster (30 ml/kg/day) or slower (18 ml/kg/day) daily feed increments improve survival without moderate or severe disability and other morbidities in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants.

designThis was a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Randomisation was via a web-hosted minimisation algorithm. It was not possible to safely and completely blind caregivers and parents.

settingThe setting was 55 UK neonatal units, from May 2013 to June 2015.

participantsThe participants were infants born at < 32 weeks' gestation or a weight of < 1500 g, who were receiving < 30 ml/kg/day of milk at trial enrolment.

interventionsWhen clinicians were ready to start advancing feed volumes, the infant was randomised to receive daily feed increments of either 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In total, 1400 infants were allocated to fast feeds and 1404 infants were allocated to slow feeds.

main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months of age, corrected for gestational age. The secondary outcomes were mortality; moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months corrected for gestational age; death before discharge home; microbiologically confirmed or clinically suspected late-onset sepsis; necrotising enterocolitis (Bell's stage 2 or 3); time taken to reach full milk feeds (tolerating 150 ml/kg/day for 3 consecutive days); growth from birth to discharge; duration of parenteral feeding; time in intensive care; duration of hospital stay; diagnosis of cerebral palsy by a doctor or other health professional; and individual components of the definition of moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability.

resultsThe results showed that survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months occurred in 802 out of 1224 (65.5%) infants allocated to faster increments and 848 out of 1246 (68.1%) infants allocated to slower increments (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.01). There was no significant difference between groups in the risk of the individual components of the primary outcome or in the important hospital outcomes: late-onset sepsis (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.07) or necrotising enterocolitis (adjusted risk ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.16). Cost-consequence analysis showed that the faster feed increment rate was less costly but also less effective than the slower rate in terms of achieving the primary outcome, so was therefore found to not be cost-effective. Four unexpected serious adverse events were reported, two in each group. None was assessed as being causally related to the intervention. LIMITATIONS: The study could not be blinded, so care may have been affected by knowledge of allocation. Although well powered for comparisons of all infants, subgroup comparisons were underpowered.

conclusionsNo clear advantage was identified for the important outcomes in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants when milk feeds were advanced in daily volume increments of 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In terms of future work, the interaction of different milk types with increments merits further examination, as may different increments in infants at the extremes of gestation or birthweight.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN76463425.

fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

Enteral NutritionInfant, Extremely PrematureInfant, Very Low Birth WeightMilk, HumanEnterocolitis, NecrotizingFemaleGestational AgeHumansInfantInfant, NewbornInfant, Premature, DiseasesIrelandMaleSepsisUnited KingdomDISABILITYINFECTIONMILK FEEDINGNECROTISING ENTEROCOLITISPRETERMRANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIALSURVIVAL

Identifiers

PMID32342857
PMCPMC7212304
OpenAlexW3019905822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.