ArticlePediatric research2026
Food for thought: a mixed methods analysis of nutrition decision making during bedside rounds in the neonatal intensive care unit.
Article in Pediatric research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVariation in nutrition delivery contributes to poor growth in preterm infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU); however, few studies have examined how clinicians develop nutrition plans. The aim of this research is to describe the nutrition decision-making process during rounds for preterm infants in the NICU.
methodsWe conducted a convergent parallel mixed methods study of bedside rounds on preterm infants at two NICUs. Qualitative data were collected by observing rounds which were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. Quantitative data were abstracted from the medical record. Data were merged to analyze characteristics of discussion of infant nutrition.
resultsFour nutrition-specific themes characterized discussion during rounds for preterm infants: 1) nutrition is important but fluid is prioritized, and discussion of nutrition occurs in the language of fluid; 2) discussions reflect uncertainty and lack specificity; 3) fluid allowance, feeding tolerance, growth and metabolism are primary drivers of nutrition plans; and 4) distinguishing whether measured weights indicate growth versus fluid retention or measurement error is challenging.
conclusionMultiple direct and indirect drivers influence nutrition decisions. Clinicians answer questions about nutrition by discussing fluid. This may lead to suboptimal solutions during the transition phase of nutrition and periods of fluid restriction. IMPACT: In the neonatal intensive care unit, nutrition-specific concerns of fluid allowance, feeding intolerance, growth and metabolism are drivers of the nutrition decision-making process for infants and involve several tradeoffs. Rather than discussing "how much nutrition the baby received," clinicians commonly used a heuristic to more easily approximate energy or protein intake by discussing "how much fluid the baby received." Distinguishing actual growth from measurement error and fluid retention is challenging. Clinicians lack easily accessible data to accurately assess what nutrition the infant received and how the infant grew in response.
Identifiers
42768100What 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.