ArticlePaediatrics & child health2020
A national survey of the enteral feeding practices in Canadian neonatal intensive care units.
Article in Paediatrics & child health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Re-feeding versus discarding gastric residuals to improve growth in preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Routine monitoring of gastric residual for prevention of necrotising enterocolitis in preterm infants.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Nutrition of the preterm infant with persistent ductus arteriosus: existing evidence and practical implications.Pediatric research · 2026Review
- Necrotizing enterocolitis in very preterm infants: an epidemiological study in Jiangsu, China.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- How long does it take to start minimal enteral feeding in preterm Neonates admitted to NICUs in Southern Oromia, Ethiopia?Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Observational
- 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimNutrition affects the growth and neurodevelopmental outcomes of preterm infants, yet controversies exist about the optimal enteral feeding regime. The objective of this study was to compare enteral feeding guidelines in Canadian neonatal intensive care units (NICUs).
methodThe research team identified key enteral feeding practices of interest. Canadian Neonatal Network site investigators at 30 Level 3 NICUs were contacted to obtain a copy of their 2016 to 2017 feeding guidelines for infants who weighed less than 1,500 g at birth. Each guideline was reviewed to compare recommendations around the selected feeding practices.
resultsFive of the 30 NICUs did not have a feeding guideline. The other 25 NICUs used 22 different enteral feeding guidelines. The guidelines in 40% of those NICUs recommend commencing minimal enteral nutrition (MEN) within 24 hours of birth and maintaining that same feeding volume for 24 to 96 hours. In 40% of NICUs, the guideline recommended that MEN be initiated at a volume of 5 to 10 mL/kg/day for infants born at <1,000 g. Guidelines in all 25 NICUs recommend the use of bovine-based human milk fortifier (HMF), and in 56% of NICUs, it is recommended that HMF be initiated at a total fluid intake of 100 mL/kg/day. Guidelines in only 16% of NICUs recommended routine gastric residual checks. Donor milk and probiotics are used in 76% and 72% of the 25 NICUs, respectively.
conclusionThis study revealed substantial variability in recommended feeding practices for very low birth weight infants, underscoring the need to establish a national feeding guideline for this vulnerable group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.