ArticleBMJ open2024
Infant formula supplemented with milk fat globule membrane compared with standard infant formula for the cognitive development of healthy term-born formula-fed infants: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMilk fat globule membrane (MFGM) is a complex lipid-protein structure in mammalian milk and human milk that is largely absent from breastmilk substitutes. The objective of this trial is to investigate whether providing infant formula enriched with MFGM versus standard infant formula improves cognitive development at 12 months of age in exclusively formula-fed full-term infants. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a randomised, controlled, clinician-blinded, researcher-blinded and participant-blinded trial of two parallel formula-fed groups and a breastfed reference group that were recruited in the suburban Adelaide (Australia) community by a single study centre (a medical research institute). Healthy, exclusively formula-fed, singleton, term-born infants under 8 weeks of age were randomised to either an MFGM-supplemented formula (intervention) or standard infant formula (control) from enrolment until 12 months of age. The reference group was not provided with formula. The primary outcome is the Cognitive Scale of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, Fourth Edition (Bayley-IV) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes are the Bayley-IV Cognitive Scale at 24 months, other Bayley-IV domains (language, motor, emotional and behavioural development) at 12 and 24 months of age, infant attention at 4 and 9 months of age, parent-rated language at 12 and 24 months of age, parent-rated development at 6 and 18 months of age as well as growth, tolerance and safety of the study formula. To ensure at least 80% power to detect a 5-point difference in the mean Bayley-IV cognitive score, >200 infants were recruited in each group. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Women's and Children Health Network Human Research Ethics Committee reviewed and approved the study (HREC/19/WCHN/140). Caregivers gave written informed consent prior to enrolling in the trial. Findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12620000552987; Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: anzctr.org.au.
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.