SynthesisNeonatology2026
Standardised versus Individualised Fortification of Expressed Breastmilk for Preterm Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Neonatology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough the precise nutrient requirements of preterm infants remain uncertain, routine human milk fortification is standard practice despite limited evidence of long-term benefit. Whether current fortification strategies optimally balance benefits, risks, and resource use remains unclear. This review evaluates whether individualised fortification improves preterm infant outcomes.
methodsRandomised controlled trials comparing individualised with standardised fortification were included, evaluating outcomes including mortality, neurodevelopment, growth, and neonatal morbidities. Four databases and three trial registries were searched. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted independently by two reviewers using Cochrane Risk of Bias-1 tool. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE.
resultsTwelve studies including 575 participants were included. Evidence is very uncertain about the effect of individualised fortification on mortality [181 infants, relative risk (RR) 0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.02, 1.66), p = 0.14, I2 = 0%] and necrotising enterocolitis [193 infants, RR 0.29 (0.05, 1.72), p = 0.17, I2 = 0%], both very low certainty. Effect on neurodevelopment at 18 months remains very uncertain. Individualised fortification likely increases head circumference [224 infants, mean difference (MD) 1.76 (0.76, 2.76) mm/week, p = 0.0005, I2 = 52%], weight gain [454 infants, MD 2.87 (1.36, 4.39) g/kg/day, p < 0.0002, I2 = 79%], length gain [261 infants, MD 3.20 (1.22, 5.18) mm/week, p = 0.002, I2 = 81%] and fat-free mass [106 infants, MD 121.4 (25.6, 217.2) g, p = 0.01, I2 = 0], all with moderate-certainty. It may increase fat mass [106 infants, MD 68.9 (6.1, 131.8) g, p = 0.03, I2 = 63%] with low certainty.
conclusionIndividualised fortification likely increases growth in preterm infants; however, whether this is beneficial to clinical and long-term functional health is uncertain. Further high-quality trials with long-term follow-up are needed.
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.