ArticleSAGE open medicine2025
Trophic feeding initiation and its predictors in preterm neonates admitted to Neonatal Intensive Care Units: Multicenter study, Addis Ababa.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Delayed trophic feeding initiation is a significant risk for physical and neurological complications in neonates; however, data on feeding initiation in the current study setting are limited. Objective: This study aimed to determine the time to initiation of trophic feeding and to identify reasons for delayed initiation among preterm neonates. Methods: A prospective cohort study was conducted among 153 neonates admitted to Neonatal Intensive Care Units from February to April 20, 2023. Data were collected via Kobo and analyzed with STATA. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used for analysis. Primary and secondary outcomes: Median time and rate of trophic feeding initiation were estimated using Kaplan-Meier and simple frequency statistics, respectively, and adjusted hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval was used to identify factors for delayed initiation. Results: Among 153 neonates followed for 6853 person-hours, 85% initiated trophic feeding. The incidence rate of trophic feeding initiating was 1.9/100 person-hours with a median time of 41 h (95% confidence interval: 31-45). Delayed initiation was significantly associated with gestational age <34 weeks (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.54, 95% confidence interval: 0.37-0.79), first min APGAR score <7 (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.4, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-0.65), fifth min APGAR score <7 (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.51, 95% confidence interval: 0.34-0.79), small for gestational age (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.54, 95% confidence interval: 0.33-0.88), cesarean delivery (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.47, 95% confidence interval: 0.31-0.71), being out-born (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.50, 95% confidence interval: 0.30-0.83), respiratory distress syndrome (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.94), and hemodynamic instability (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.46, 95% confidence interval: 0.31-0.68). Conclusion: The study found a significant delay in trophic feeding initiation, despite guidelines recommending within 24 h. Gestational age <34 weeks, low APGAR scores, small for gestational age, cesarean delivery, being out-born, respiratory distress syndrome, and hemodynamic instability were associated factors. The authors emphasize the need for healthcare workers to begin trophic feeding within 24 h, regardless of these factors. They also recommend conducting larger studies nationwide to strengthen the evidence on this issue.
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.