ArticleJournal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques2025
Standard formulas and individualised parenteral nutrition preparations in very low birth weight infants.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & pharmaceutical sciences : a publication of the Canadian Society for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Societe canadienne des sciences pharmaceutiques, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/objectives: Optimal nutrition in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants is associated with improved clinical outcomes. When parenteral nutrition (PN) with a marketing authorisation is not appropriate, hospital pharmacies can prepare more suitable PN preparation. This corresponds to standard preparations (i.e., available at any time with a fixed composition) or individualised ones (i.e., available after a period of prescription, preparation, and pharmaceutical control). In France, 12 standard formulas to be compounded were proposed by a national consortium in 2018. The objective of the present study was to evaluate whether individualised PN preparations ordered in our hospital are substitutable by one of the 12 standard formulas. Methods: All PN prescriptions for VLBW infants made in 2021 in our hospital were retrospectively extracted. For each prescription, the theoretical intakes that an infant would have received if a standard preparation had been administered were calculated. Standard and individualised preparations were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test for each component. Secondly, the relative difference between the expected intakes and effectively intakes was calculated for each component. Results/Discussion: Over the study period, 1708 prescriptions were identified (corresponding to 1708 PN individualised preparations). Most infants were extremely low birth weight infants. Based on the methods of comparison, none of the 12 standard formulas fitted with targeted intakes achieved with individualised PN preparations ordered, whereas prescriptions did fit with international guidelines. Conclusion: The study highlights how it is difficult to establish nationally standard PN formulas for VLBW infants; the development of local standard formulas seems therefore relevant.
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.