↓ Skip to main content

Longchain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
Longchain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000375.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kwi Moon, Shripada C Rao, Sven M Schulzke, Sanjay K Patole, Karen Simmer

Abstract

Controversy exists over whether longchain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) are essential nutrients for preterm infants because they may not be able to synthesise sufficient amounts of LCPUFA to meet the needs of the developing brain and retina. To assess whether supplementation of formula milk with LCPUFA is safe and of benefit to preterm infants. The main areas of interest were the effects of supplementation on the visual function, development and growth of preterm infants. Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library (searched 28 February 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1966 to 28 February 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 28 February 2016), CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1980 to 28 February 2016), MEDLINE In Process & Other Non-indexed Citations (1966 to 28 February 2016) and by checking reference lists of articles and conference proceedings. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (13 April 2016). No language restrictions were applied. All randomised trials evaluating the effect of LCPUFA-supplemented formula in enterally-fed preterm infants (compared with standard formula) on visual development, neurodevelopment and physical growth. Trials reporting only biochemical outcomes were not included. All authors assessed eligibility and trial quality, two authors extracted data separately. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Seventeen trials involving 2260 preterm infants were included in the review. The risk of bias varied across the included trials with 10 studies having low risk of bias in a majority of the domains. The median gestational age (GA) in the included trials was 30 weeks and median birth weight (BW) was 1300 g. The median concentration of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) was 0.33% (range: 0.15% to 1%) and arachidonic acid (AA) 0.37% (range: 0.02% to 0.84%). Visual acuity Visual acuity over the first year was measured by Teller or Lea acuity cards in eight studies, by visual evoked potential (VEP) in six studies and by electroretinogram (ERG) in two studies. Most studies found no significant differences in visual acuity between supplemented and control infants. The form of data presentation and the varying assessment methods precluded the use of meta-analysis. A GRADE analysis for this outcome indicated that the overall quality of evidence was low. Neurodevelopment Three out of seven studies reported some benefit of LCPUFA on neurodevelopment at different postnatal ages. Meta-analysis of four studies evaluating Bayley Scales of Infant Development at 12 months (N = 364) showed no significant effect of supplementation (Mental Development Index (MDI): MD 0.96, 95% CI -1.42 to 3.34; P = 0.43; I² = 71% - Psychomotor DeveIopment Index (PDI): MD 0.23, 95% CI -2.77 to 3.22; P = 0.88; I² = 81%). Furthermore, three studies at 18 months (N = 494) also revealed no significant effect of LCPUFA on neurodevelopment (MDI: MD 2.40, 95% CI -0.33 to 5.12; P = 0.08; I² = 0% - PDI: MD 0.74, 95% CI -1.90 to 3.37; P = 0.58; I² = 54%). A GRADE analysis for these outcomes indicated that the overall quality of evidence was low. Physical growth Four out of 15 studies reported benefits of LCPUFA on growth of supplemented infants at different postmenstrual ages (PMAs), whereas two trials suggested that LCPUFA-supplemented infants grow less well. One trial reported mild reductions in length and weight z scores at 18 months. Meta-analysis of five studies (N = 297) showed increased weight and length at two months post-term in supplemented infants (Weight: MD 0.21, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.33; P = 0.0010; I² = 69% - Length: MD 0.47, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.94; P = 0.05; I² = 0%). Meta-analysis of four studies at a corrected age of 12 months (N = 271) showed no significant effect of supplementation on growth outcomes (Weight: MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.12; P = 0.34; I² = 65% - Length: MD 0.25; 95% CI -0.33 to 0.84; P = 0.40; I² = 71% - Head circumference: MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.23; P = 0.45; I² = 0%). No significant effect of LCPUFA on weight, length or head circumference was observed on meta-analysis of two studies (n = 396 infants) at 18 months (Weight: MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.10; P = 0.26; I² = 66% - Length: MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.35; P = 0.38; I² = 90% - Head circumference: MD -0.18, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.18; P = 0.32; I² = 0%). A GRADE analysis for this outcome indicated that the overall quality of evidence was low. Infants enrolled in the trials were relatively mature and healthy preterm infants. Assessment schedule and methodology, dose and source of supplementation and fatty acid composition of the control formula varied between trials. On pooling of results, no clear long-term benefits or harms were demonstrated for preterm infants receiving LCPUFA-supplemented formula.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 9%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 25 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 16%
Psychology 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 32 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 05 March 2017.
All research outputs
#1,703,005
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,172
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,309
of 362,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#76
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 362,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.