↓ Skip to main content

Multi-nutrient fortification of human milk for preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
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 (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
189 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
Multi-nutrient fortification of human milk for preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000343.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer VE Brown, Nicholas D Embleton, Jane E Harding, William McGuire

Abstract

Exclusively breast milk-fed preterm infants may accumulate nutrient deficits leading to extrauterine growth restriction. Feeding preterm infants with multi-nutrient fortified human breast milk rather than unfortified breast milk may increase nutrient accretion and growth rates and may improve neurodevelopmental outcomes. To determine whether multi-nutrient fortified human breast milk improves important outcomes (including growth and development) over unfortified breast milk for preterm infants without increasing the risk of adverse effects (such as feed intolerance and necrotising enterocolitis). We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. This included electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (until February 2016), as well as conference proceedings and previous reviews. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared feeding preterm infants with multi-nutrient (protein and energy plus minerals, vitamins or other nutrients) fortified human breast milk versus unfortified (no added protein or energy) breast milk. We extracted data using the standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group. We separately evaluated trial quality, data extracted by two review authors and data synthesised using risk ratios (RRs), risk differences and mean differences (MDs). We assessed the quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We identified 14 trials in which a total of 1071 infants participated. The trials were generally small and weak methodologically. Meta-analyses provided low-quality evidence that multi-nutrient fortification of breast milk increases in-hospital rates of growth (MD 1.81 g/kg/d, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 2.40); length (MD 0.12 cm/wk, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.17); and head circumference (MD 0.08 cm/wk, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.12). Only very limited data are available for growth and developmental outcomes assessed beyond infancy, and these show no effects of fortification. The data did not indicate other potential benefits or harms and provided low-quality evidence that fortification does not increase the risk of necrotising enterocolitis in preterm infants (typical RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.23; 11 studies, 882 infants). Limited available data do not provide strong evidence that feeding preterm infants with multi-nutrient fortified breast milk compared with unfortified breast milk affects important outcomes, except that it leads to slightly increased in-hospital growth rates.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 185 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 40 21%
Unspecified 28 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 14%
Student > Bachelor 24 13%
Researcher 23 12%
Other 47 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 45%
Unspecified 39 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 23 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 10 October 2019.
All research outputs
#732,155
of 13,629,592 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,301
of 10,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,205
of 261,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#67
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,629,592 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,688 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 261,170 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 186 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 63% of its contemporaries.