SynthesisEuropean journal of pediatrics2022
Three-hourly versus two-hourly feeding interval in stable preterm infants: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in European journal of pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of olfactory and/or gustatory stimuli on feeding of preterm infants: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- To feed or not to feed during therapeutic hypothermia in asphyxiated neonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of pediatrics · 2023Pooled it
- Early total enteral feeding versus conventional incremental feeding in preterm infants weighing 1000-1250 g: a single-center open-label randomized controlled trial.European journal of pediatrics · 2026Trial
- Editorial: Topic opportunities, barriers and pitfall of current nutritional practice in preterm infants.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggests that three-hourly feeding is safe and might help achieve full feeds earlier in preterm infants. We systematically compared the benefits and harms of three-hourly and two-hourly feeding schedules in preterm infants. We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus) and trial registries until November 16, 2021, for RCTs comparing the two feeding schedules. We did a random-effects meta-analysis using RevMan 5.4 software. The primary outcome was the incidence of stage II or III necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). Other outcomes were the incidence of any stage NEC, mortality, time to full enteral feeds, and hospital stay. Six trials (872 participants) are included. There was no significant difference in the incidence of stage II/III NEC (3 trials; 530 participants; RR 1.39; 95% CI: 0.53, 3.65; I
conclusionIn stable preterm infants (1000-1500 g), three-hourly feeding can be followed safely. In infants < 1000 g, there is insufficient evidence to advise on an optimal feeding interval, although a 2-h interval might be preferable.Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021246568. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Most of the units follow two-hourly feeding schedules without any evidence. • Recent trials suggest that the three hourly feeding schedules can be safely followed in stable preterm infants. WHAT IS NEW: • Low certainty evidence suggests that three-hourly feeding is safe in stable preterm infants (1000-1500 grams). • In infants with birthweight <1000 grams, two-hourly feeding may be considered as it was associated with a shorter time to full feeds in subgroup analysis.
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.