↓ Skip to main content

Nutrient-enriched formula versus standard formula for preterm infants following hospital discharge

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
58 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
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
Nutrient-enriched formula versus standard formula for preterm infants following hospital discharge
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004696.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lauren Young, Nicholas D Embleton, William McGuire

Abstract

Preterm infants are often growth-restricted at hospital discharge. Feeding nutrient-enriched formula rather than standard formula to infants after hospital discharge might facilitate 'catch-up' growth and might improve development. To compare the effects of nutrient-enriched formula versus standard formula on growth and development of preterm infants after hospital discharge. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; to 8 September 2016), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the effects of feeding nutrient-enriched formula (postdischarge formula or preterm formula) versus standard term formula to preterm infants after hospital discharge . Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data independently. We analysed treatment effects as described in the individual trials and reported risk ratios and risk differences for dichotomous data, and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a fixed-effect model in meta-analyses and explored potential causes of heterogeneity by performing sensitivity analyses. We assessed quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We included 16 eligible trials with a total of 1251 infant participants. Trials were of variable methodological quality, with lack of allocation concealment and incomplete follow-up identified as major potential sources of bias. Trials (N = 11) that compared feeding infants with 'postdischarge formula' (energy density about 74 kcal/100 mL) versus standard term formula (about 67 kcal/100 mL) did not find consistent evidence of effects on growth parameters up to 12 to 18 months post term. GRADE assessments indicated that evidence was of moderate quality, and that inconsistency within pooled estimates was the main quality issue.Trials (N = 5) that compared feeding with 'preterm formula' (about 80 kcal/100 mL) versus term formula found evidence of higher rates of growth throughout infancy (weighted mean differences at 12 to 18 months post term: about 500 g in weight, 5 to 10 mm in length, 5 mm in head circumference). GRADE assessments indicated that evidence was of moderate quality, and that imprecision of estimates was the main quality issue.Few trials assessed neurodevelopmental outcomes, and these trials did not detect differences in developmental indices at 18 months post term. Data on growth or development through later childhood have not been provided. Recommendations to prescribe 'postdischarge formula' for preterm infants after hospital discharge are not supported by available evidence. Limited evidence suggests that feeding 'preterm formula' (which is generally available only for in-hospital use) to preterm infants after hospital discharge may increase growth rates up to 18 months post term.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 115 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 22%
Unspecified 23 20%
Researcher 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 11%
Other 24 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 38%
Unspecified 31 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 11 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 10 December 2018.
All research outputs
#447,955
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,387
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,027
of 373,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 373,282 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.