Trial reportIndian journal of pediatrics2022
Comparison of Time Taken for Feeding Stable Preterm Babies Between Regular Nurse Feeding and Feeding with Feed Rail-A Randomized, Controlled Study.
Trial report in Indian journal of pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gavage-Feeding Assist Device to Improve Nursing Efficiency in a Resource-Limited Setup.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the variation of feeding rate and time taken for feeds between manual and automated feeding via feed rail.
methodsStable preterm babies weighing between 1 and 2 kg, on partial or full enteral feeds via gavage were randomized into gravity and feed rail feeding group, respectively. Ten nurses and 4 babies were paired to form 40 nurse-baby pairs for the study. Forty feeding events in each groups were recorded.
resultsThe median duration of feeding in the feed rail group was 18.5 min compared to 15 min in nurse-led feeding (p = 0.34). Feeding rate corrected for bodyweight ranged between 0.8 and 2.3 mL/kg/min in the feed rail group compared to 2.5 and 8.9 mL/kg/min in the control (manual gravity feed) group. This difference in the feed rate variation was statistically significant (p value of <0.0001). The median feed rate with feedrail was 1.3 mL/min as compared to 4.1 mL/min with manual gravity feeds. During the feed rail feeding, nurses were hands-free for 80% of the time.
conclusionFeed rail feeding results in slow, sustained, and minimal variation in gravity feeding at a rate of 1 to 2 mL/kg/min without affecting the feeding duration compared to manual nurse-led feeding. TRIAL REGISTERED: Clinical Trials Registry India (CTRI/2020/06/025958).
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.