ArticleGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde2026
Infant-driven versus Practitioner-driven Feeding of Preterm Infants: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Oral feeding should be mindful of individual ability. It is important that caregivers and parents are made aware of the infant's behavioral signs to prevent distress. This type of feeding is based on responding to infant cues, and we call it "infant driven." The traditional type of feeding is characterized by prescribing a predefined amount of liquid to be given at scheduled times and we call it "practitioner driven." Objective: To assess whether infant-driven feeding results in earlier full oral feeding compared to practitioner-driven feeding. Methods: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library on 26 June 2024. The primary outcome was days to full oral feeding, and the effect measure was the mean difference. A meta-analysis was conducted using the inverse variance method and random effects model, and we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Results: Twelve RCTs matched the inclusion criteria. Of those, five studies were included in a meta-analysis. The estimated mean difference favored infant-driven groups when compared to practitioner-driven groups: -4.93 (95% confidence interval -6.60 to -3.26, p < 0.00001, I Conclusions: The evidence base is compatible with a slight favorable effect of infant-driven feeding of preterm infants compared to practitioner-driven feeding of preterm infants. Future studies could provide more data on adverse events during feeding and add information obtained from follow-up at home.
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.