↓ Skip to main content

Long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in infants born at term

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
80 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
226 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
Long chain polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation in infants born at term
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000376.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bonny Jasani, Karen Simmer, Sanjay K Patole, Shripada C Rao

Abstract

The long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFA) docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (AA) are considered essential for maturation of the developing brain, retina and other organs in newborn infants. Standard infant milk formulae are not supplemented with LCPUFA; they contain only alpha-linolenic acid and linoleic acid, from which formula-fed infants must synthesise their own DHA and AA, respectively. Over the past few years, some manufacturers have added LCPUFA to formula milk and have marketed these products as providing an advantage for the overall development of full-term infants. To assess whether supplementation of formula milk with LCPUFA is both safe and beneficial for full-term infants, while focusing on effects on visual function, neurodevelopment and physical growth. Two review authors independently searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; December 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1966 to December 2016), Embase (Ovid, 1980 to December 2016), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1980 to December 2016) and abstracts of the Pediatric Academic Societies (2000 to 2016). We applied no language restrictions. We reviewed all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating effects of LCPUFA supplemented versus non-supplemented formula milk on visual function, neurodevelopment and physical growth. We did not include trials reporting only biochemical outcomes. Two review authors extracted data independently. We assessed risk of bias of included studies using the guidelines of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. When appropriate, we conducted meta-analysis to determine a pooled estimate of effect. We identified 31 RCTs and included 15 of these in the review (N = 1889).Nine studies assessed visual acuity, six of which used visual evoked potentials (VEP), two Teller cards and one both. Four studies reported beneficial effects, and the remaining five did not. Meta-analysis of three RCTs showed significant benefit for sweep VEP acuity at 12 months (log of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR)) (mean difference (MD) -0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to -0.13; I(2) = 0; three trials; N = 244), but meta-analysis of three other RCTs showed no benefit for visual acuity measured with Teller cards at 12 months (cycles/degree) (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.11; I(2) = 0; three trials; N = 256). GRADE analysis for the outcome of visual acuity indicated that the overall quality of evidence was low.Eleven studies measured neurodevelopmental outcomes at or before two years. Nine studies used Bayley Scales of Infant Development, version II (BSID-II), and only two of these studies reported beneficial effects. Meta-analysis revealed no significant differences between LCPUFA and placebo groups in BSID Mental Developmental Index (MDI) scores at 18 months (MD 0.06, 95% CI -2.01 to 2.14; I(2) = 75%; four trials; N = 661) and no significant differences in BSID Psychomotor Development Index (PDI) scores at 18 months (MD 0.69, 95% CI -0.78 to 2.16; I(2) = 61%; four trials; N = 661). Results showed no significant differences between the two groups in BSID-II scores at one year and two years of age. One study reported better novelty preference measured by the Fagan Infant Test at nine months. Another study reported better problem solving at 10 months. One study used the Brunet and Lezine test to assess the developmental quotient and found no beneficial effects. Follow-up of some infants in different studies at three, six and nine years of age revealed no beneficial effects of supplementation. GRADE analysis of these outcomes indicated that the overall quality of evidence was low.Thirteen studies measured physical growth; none found beneficial or harmful effects of supplementation. Meta-analysis of five RCTs showed that the supplemented group had lower weight (z scores) at one year of age (MD -0.23, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.06; I(2) = 83%; N = 521) and that the two groups showed no significant differences with respect to length and head circumference (z scores). Meta-analysis at 18 months and at two years revealed no significant differences between the two groups with respect to weight (kg), length (cm) and head circumference (cm). GRADE analysis of these outcomes indicated that the overall quality of evidence was low. Most of the included RCTs reported no beneficial effects or harms of LCPUFA supplementation on neurodevelopmental outcomes of formula-fed full-term infants and no consistent beneficial effects on visual acuity. Routine supplementation of full-term infant milk formula with LCPUFA cannot be recommended at this time.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 80 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 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Unknown 221 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 20%
Researcher 37 16%
Student > Bachelor 31 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 12%
Unspecified 25 11%
Other 60 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 102 45%
Unspecified 37 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 7%
Psychology 12 5%
Other 31 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 90. 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 18 October 2019.
All research outputs
#186,139
of 13,658,696 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#424
of 10,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,877
of 256,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#18
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,658,696 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,700 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 256,757 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.