↓ Skip to main content

Feed thickener for infants up to six months of age with gastro-oesophageal reflux

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
74 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Feed thickener for infants up to six months of age with gastro-oesophageal reflux
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003211.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

T'ng Chang Kwok, Shalini Ojha, Jon Dorling

Abstract

Gastro-oesophageal reflux (GOR) is common in infants, and feed thickeners are often used to manage it in infants as they are simple to use and perceived to be harmless. However, conflicting evidence exists to support the use of feed thickeners. To evaluate the use of feed thickeners in infants up to six months of age with GOR in terms of reduction in a) signs and symptoms of GOR, b) reflux episodes on pH probe monitoring or intraluminal impedance or a combination of both, or c) histological evidence of oesophagitis. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 22 November 2016), Embase (1980 to 22 November 2016), and CINAHL (1982 to 22 November 2016). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials. We included randomised controlled trials if they examined the effects of feed thickeners as compared to unthickened feeds (no treatment or placebo) in treating GOR in term infants up to six months of age or six months of corrected gestational age for those born preterm. Two review authors independently identified eligible studies from the literature search. Two review authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessments of the eligible studies. Differences in opinion were resolved by discussion with a third review author, and consensus was reached among all three review authors. We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. Eight trials recruiting a total of 637 infants met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review. The infants included in the review were mainly formula-fed term infants. The trials were of variable methodological quality. Formula-fed term infants with GOR on feed thickeners had nearly two fewer episodes of regurgitation per day (mean difference -1.97 episodes per day, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.32 to -1.61; 6 studies, 442 infants, moderate-certainty evidence) and were 2.5 times more likely to be asymptomatic from regurgitation at the end of the intervention period (risk ratio 2.50, 95% CI 1.38 to 4.51; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 5, 95% CI 4 to 13; 2 studies, 186 infants, low-certainty evidence) when compared to infants with GOR on unthickened feeds. No studies reported failure to thrive as an outcome. We found low-certainty evidence based on 2 studies recruiting 116 infants that use of feed thickeners improved the oesophageal pH probe parameters of reflux index (i.e. percentage of time pH < 4), number of reflux episodes lasting longer than 5 minutes, and duration of longest reflux episode. No major side effects were reported with the use of feed thickeners. Information was insufficient to conclude which type of feed thickener is superior. Gastro-oesophageal reflux is a physiological self resolving phenomenon in infants that does not necessarily require any treatment. However, we found moderate-certainty evidence that feed thickeners should be considered if regurgitation symptoms persist in term bottle-fed infants. The reduction of two episodes of regurgitation per day is likely to be of clinical significance to caregivers. Due to the limited information available, we were unable to assess the use of feed thickeners in infants who are breastfeeding or preterm nor could we conclude which type of feed thickener is superior.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 74 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 22%
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 5 6%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 14 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 17%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 21 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 54. 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 02 January 2020.
All research outputs
#353,407
of 14,222,420 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#916
of 10,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,093
of 399,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#22
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,222,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 399,162 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 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 90% of its contemporaries.