↓ Skip to main content

Formula milk versus donor breast milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
309 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Formula milk versus donor breast milk for feeding preterm or low birth weight infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2007
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002971.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Quigley, Ginny Henderson, Mary Y Anthony, William McGuire, Quigley, Maria, Henderson, Ginny, Anthony, Mary Y, McGuire, William

Abstract

When sufficient maternal breast milk is not available, the alternative sources of enteral nutrition for preterm or low birth weight infants are donor breast milk or artificial formula milk. Feeding preterm or low birth weight infants with formula milk might increase nutrient input and growth rates. However, since feeding with formula milk may be associated with a higher incidence of feeding intolerance and necrotising enterocolitis, this may adversely affect growth and development. To determine the effect of formula milk compared with donor human breast milk on growth and development in preterm or low birth weight infants. The standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. This included electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 - May 2007), EMBASE (1980 - May 2007), CINAHL (1982 - May 2007), conference proceedings, and previous reviews. Randomised controlled trials comparing feeding with formula milk versus donor breast milk in preterm or low birth weight infants. Data were extracted using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group, with separate evaluation of trial quality and data extraction by two reviewer authors, and synthesis of data using relative risk, risk difference and weighted mean difference. Eight trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Only one trial used nutrient-fortified donor breast milk. Enteral feeding with formula milk compared with donor breast milk resulted in higher rates of growth in the short term. There was no evidence of an effect on long-term growth rates or neurodevelopmental outcomes. Meta-analysis of data from five trials demonstrated a statistically significantly higher incidence of necrotising enterocolitis in the formula fed group: typical relative risk 2.5 (95% confidence interval 1.2, 5.1); typical risk difference: 0.03 (95% confidence interval 0.01, 0.06; number needed to harm: 33 (95% confidence interval 17, 100). In preterm and low birth weight infants, feeding with formula milk compared with donor breast milk results in a higher rate of short-term growth but also a higher risk of developing necrotising enterocolitis. There are only limited data on the comparison of feeding with formula milk versus nutrient-fortified donor breast milk. This limits the applicability of the findings as nutrient fortification of breast milk is now a common practice in neonatal care. Future trials may compare growth, development and adverse outcomes in infants who receive formula milk versus nutrient-fortified donor breast milk given as a supplement to maternal expressed breast milk or as a sole diet.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 161 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 20%
Researcher 21 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 19 11%
Other 15 9%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 26 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 30 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 August 2017.
All research outputs
#1,111,073
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,535
of 12,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,111
of 75,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 75,409 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.