↓ Skip to main content

High versus standard volume enteral feeds to promote growth in preterm or low birth weight infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
45 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
High versus standard volume enteral feeds to promote growth in preterm or low birth weight infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012413.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thangaraj Abiramalatha, Niranjan Thomas, Vijay Gupta, Anand Viswanathan, William McGuire

Abstract

Breast milk alone, given at standard recommended volumes (150 to 180 mL/kg/d), is not adequate to meet the protein, energy, and other nutrient requirements of growing preterm or low birth weight infants. One strategy that may be used to address these potential nutrient deficits is to give infants enteral feeds in excess of 200 mL/kg/d ('high-volume' feeds). This approach may increase nutrient uptake and growth rates, but concerns include that high-volume enteral feeds may cause feed intolerance, gastro-oesophageal reflux, aspiration pneumonia, necrotising enterocolitis, or complications related to fluid overload, including patent ductus arteriosus and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. To assess the effect on growth and safety of feeding preterm or low birth weight infants with high (> 200 mL/kg/d) versus standard (≤ 200 mL/kg/d) volume of enteral feeds. Infants in intervention and control groups should have received the same type of milk (breast milk, formula, or both), the same fortification or micronutrient supplements, and the same enteral feeding regimen (bolus, continuous) and rate of feed volume advancement.To conduct subgroup analyses based on type of milk (breast milk vs formula), gestational age or birth weight category of included infants (very preterm or VLBW vs preterm or LBW), presence of intrauterine growth restriction (using birth weight relative to the reference population as a surrogate), and income level of the country in which the trial was conducted (low or middle income vs high income) (see 'Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity'). We used the Cochrane Neonatal standard search strategy, which included searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (1946 to November 2016); Embase (1974 to November 2016); and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to November 2016), as well as conference proceedings, previous reviews, and trial registries. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared high-volume versus standard-volume enteral feeds for preterm or low birth weight infants. Two review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and independently extracted data. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported the risk ratio and risk difference for dichotomous data, and the mean difference for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals. . We assessed the quality of evidence at the outcome level via the GRADE approach. We found one eligible trial that included 64 infants. This trial was not blinded. Analysis showed a higher rate of weight gain in the high-volume feeds group: mean difference 6.20 g/kg/d (95% confidence interval 2.71 to 9.69). There was no increase in the risk of feed intolerance or necrotising enterocolitis with high-volume feeds, but 95% confidence intervals around these estimates were wide. We assessed the quality of evidence for these outcomes as 'low' or 'very low' because of imprecision of the estimates of effect and concern about risk of bias due to lack of blinding in the included trial. Trial authors provided no data on other outcomes, including gastro-oesophageal reflux, aspiration pneumonia, necrotising enterocolitis, patent ductus arteriosus, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, or long-term growth and neurodevelopment. We found only very limited data from one small unblinded trial on the effects of high-volume feeds on important outcomes for preterm or low birth weight infants. The quality of evidence is low to very low. Hence, available evidence is insufficient to support or refute high-volume enteral feeds in preterm or low birth weight infants. A large, pragmatic randomised controlled trial is needed to provide data of sufficient quality and precision to inform policy and practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 13 22%
Student > Bachelor 11 18%
Student > Master 10 17%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Other 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 35%
Unspecified 17 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Other 11 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 December 2017.
All research outputs
#580,500
of 13,545,966 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,831
of 10,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,341
of 269,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#59
of 241 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,545,966 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 10,641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 269,076 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 241 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.