↓ Skip to main content

Fat supplementation of human milk for promoting growth in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
Fat supplementation of human milk for promoting growth in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000341.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma A Amissah, Julie Brown, Jane E Harding

Abstract

As preterm infants do not experience the nutrient accretion and rapid growth phase of the third trimester of pregnancy, they are vulnerable to postnatal nutritional deficits, including of fat. Consequently, they require higher fat intakes compared to their full term counterparts to achieve adequate growth and development. Human milk fat provides the major energy needs of the preterm infant and also contributes to several metabolic and physiological functions. Although human milk has many benefits for this population, its fat content is highly variable and may be inadequate for their optimum growth and development. This is a 2018 update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2000. To determine whether supplementation of human milk with fat compared with unsupplemented human milk fed to preterm infants improves growth, body composition, cardio-metabolic, and neurodevelopmental outcomes without significant adverse effects. We used the standard search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 08 February 2018), Embase (1980 to 08 February 2018), and CINAHL (1982 to 08 February 2018). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials were eligible if they used random or quasi-random methods to allocate preterm infants fed human milk in hospital to supplementation or no supplementation with additional fat. No new randomised controlled trials matching the selection criteria were found but we extracted data from the previously included trial due to changes in review outcomes from when the protocol was first published. Two reviewers independently abstracted data, assessed trial quality, and the quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. We planned to perform meta-analyses using risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We planned to use a fixed-effect model and to explore potential causes of heterogeneity via sensitivity analyses. One randomised trial involving 14 preterm infants was included. There was no evidence of a clear difference between the fat-supplemented and unsupplemented groups in in-hospital rates of growth in weight (MD 0.6 g/kg/day, 95% CI -2.4 to 3.6; 1 RCT, n = 14 infants, very low-quality evidence), length (MD 0.1 cm/week, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.3; 1 RCT, n = 14 infants, very low-quality evidence) and head circumference (MD 0.2 cm/week, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.4; 1 RCT n = 14 infants, very low-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence that fat supplementation increased the risk of feeding intolerance (RR 3.0, 95% CI 0.1 to 64.3; 1 RCT, n = 16 infants, very low-quality evidence). No data were available regarding the effects of fat supplementation on long-term growth, body mass index, body composition, neurodevelopmental, or cardio-metabolic outcomes. The one included trial suggests no evidence of an effect of fat supplementation of human milk on short-term growth and feeding intolerance in preterm infants. However, the very low-quality evidence, small sample size, few events, and low precision diminishes our confidence that these results reflect the true effect of fat supplementation of human milk in preterm infants, and no long-term outcomes were reported. Further high-quality research should evaluate the effect on short and long-term growth, neurodevelopmental and cardio-metabolic outcomes in the context of the development of multicomponent fortifiers. Optimal dosage, adverse effects, and delivery practices should also be evaluated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 43%
Student > Bachelor 2 29%
Unspecified 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 14%
Psychology 1 14%
Social Sciences 1 14%
Other 1 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 01 April 2019.
All research outputs
#3,090,035
of 13,568,727 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,645
of 10,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,166
of 267,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#117
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,568,727 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 267,534 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.