ArticleThe Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association2024
Comparison of two Specialized Cleft Palate Feeders.
Article in The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate feeding efficiency and weight gain in infants with cleft palate fed using 1 of the 2 specialty feeders.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingCleft palate clinic in a tertiary pediatric hospital.
participantsInfants with cleft palate (with or without cleft lip) fed using the Medela SpecialNeeds® Feeder (n = 39) or the Dr. Brown's® Specialty Feeding System (n = 16) and who had documented feeding and growth data available from the time of initial assessment in the first month of life and at subsequent follow-up between 2 and 4 months. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Feeding velocity (mL/min). SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES: Calorie velocity (kcal/min), weight gain, and complications associated with poor feeding.
resultsNo statistically significant differences in feeding or calorie velocities were identified between infants with cleft palate fed with the Medela SpecialNeeds® feeder and those fed with the Dr. Brown's® feeder. Mean weight z-scores by month did not differ significantly between the 2 bottle groups at the time of initial assessment (P = .84) and follow-up (P = .20). Mean weight z-scores by month for the infants included in this study fell below the 50th percentile. The proportion of infants who developed otitis media, reflux requiring treatment, or who required hospital admission for nasogastric (NG) feeds did not differ significantly between the 2 groups.
conclusionsDespite being adequately powered for the primary outcome, no significant differences were identified between infants fed with the Medela or the Dr. Brown's feeders in terms of feeding velocity, calorie velocity, weight gain, or complications.
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.