↓ Skip to main content

Higher versus lower protein intake in formula‐fed term infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2023
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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
Higher versus lower protein intake in formula‐fed term infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2023
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd013758.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alejandro G Gonzalez-Garay, Aurora E Serralde-Zúñiga, Isabel Medina Vera, Liliana Velasco Hidalgo, Mathy Victoria Alonso Ocaña

Abstract

Many infants are fed infant formulas to promote growth. Some formulas have a high protein content (≥ 2.5 g per 100 kcal) to accelerate weight gain during the first year of life. The risk-benefit balance of these formulas is unclear. To evaluate the benefits and harms of higher protein intake versus lower protein intake in healthy, formula-fed term infants. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, OpenGrey, clinical trial registries, and conference proceedings in October 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of healthy formula-fed infants (those fed only formula and those given formula as a complementary food). We included infants of any sex or ethnicity who were fed infant formula for at least three consecutive months at any time from birth. We excluded quasi-randomized trials, observational studies, and infants with congenital malformations or serious underlying diseases. We defined high protein content as 2.5 g or more per 100 kcal, and low protein content as less than 1.8 g per 100 kcal (for exclusive formula feeding) or less than 1.7 g per 100 kcal (for complementary formula feeding). Four review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data from trials, and a fifth review author resolved discrepancies. We performed random-effects meta-analyses, calculating risk ratios (RRs) or Peto odds ratios (Peto ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. We included 11 RCTs (1185 infants) conducted in high-income countries. Seven trials (1629 infants) compared high-protein formula against standard-protein formula, and four trials (256 infants) compared standard-protein formula against low-protein formula. The longest follow-up was 11 years. High-protein formula versus standard-protein formula We found very low-certainty evidence that feeding healthy term infants high-protein formula compared to standard-protein formula has little or no effect on underweight (MD in weight-for-age z-score 0.05 SDs, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.19; P = 0.51, I2 = 61%; 7 studies, 1629 participants), stunting (MD in height-for-age z-score 0.15 SDs, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.35; P = 0.14, I2 = 73%; 7 studies, 1629 participants), and wasting (MD in weight-for-height z-score -0.12 SDs, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.07; P = 0.20, I2 = 94%; 7 studies, 1629 participants) in the first year of life. We found very low-certainty evidence that feeding healthy infants high-protein formula compared to standard-protein formula has little or no effect on the occurrence of overweight (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.51; P = 0.51; 1 study, 1090 participants) or obesity (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.59 to 6.48; P = 0.27; 1 study, 1090 participants) at five years of follow-up. No studies reported all-cause mortality. Feeding healthy infants high-protein formula compared to standard-protein formula may have little or no effect on the occurrence of adverse events such as diarrhea, vomiting, or milk hypersensitivity (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.13; P = 0.44, I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 445 participants; low-certainty evidence) in the first year of life. Standard-protein formula versus low-protein formula We found very low-certainty evidence that feeding healthy infants standard-protein formula compared to low-protein formula has little or no effect on underweight (MD in weight-for-age z-score 0.0, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.43; P = 0.99, I2 = 81%; 4 studies, 256 participants), stunting (MD in height-for-age z-score -0.01, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.35; P = 0.96, I2 = 73%; 4 studies, 256 participants), and wasting (MD in weight-for-height z-score 0.13, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.56; P = 0.54, I2 = 95%; 4 studies, 256 participants) in the first year of life. No studies reported overweight, obesity, or all-cause mortality. Feeding healthy infants standard-protein formula compared to low-protein formula may have little or no effect on the occurrence of adverse events such as diarrhea, vomiting, or milk hypersensitivity (Peto OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.40; P = 0.28, I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 206 participants; low-certainty evidence) in the first four months of life. We are unsure if feeding healthy infants high-protein formula compared to standard-protein formula has an effect on undernutrition, overweight, or obesity. There may be little or no difference in the risk of adverse effects between infants fed with high-protein formula versus those fed with standard-protein formula. We are unsure if feeding healthy infants standard-protein formula compared to low-protein formula has any effect on undernutrition. There may be little or no difference in the risk of adverse effects between infants fed with standard-protein formula versus those fed with low-protein formula. The findings of six ongoing studies and two studies awaiting classification studies may change the conclusions of this review.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 12%
Student > Master 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Professor 1 4%
Unknown 18 69%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 3 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Unknown 18 69%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 16 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,274,743
of 25,464,544 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,759
of 13,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,434
of 359,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#35
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,464,544 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,111 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. 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 359,606 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.