↓ Skip to main content

Is targeted fortification of human breast milk an optimal nutrition strategy for preterm infants? An interventional study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Is targeted fortification of human breast milk an optimal nutrition strategy for preterm infants? An interventional study
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12967-016-0957-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Morlacchi, Domenica Mallardi, Maria Lorella Giannì, Paola Roggero, Orsola Amato, Pasqua Piemontese, Dario Consonni, Fabio Mosca

Abstract

Fortifying human milk contributes to the prevention of postnatal growth failure in preterm infants. Because of the natural variability of human milk, targeted fortification of human milk has been advocated. However, data regarding the efficacy and safety of prolonged targeted fortification are scarce. We aimed to assess the safety of targeted fortification of human milk in preterm infants compared with standard fortification, as well as the effects on infant growth. We conducted an interventional study during hospital stay in healthy very low birth weight preterm infants who were exclusively fed human milk. Pools of human milk collected for 24 h were analysed using mid-infrared transmission spectroscopy. Targeted fortification of human milk was performed by adding macronutrients to native human milk to obtain optimal ratios of fat (4.4 g), carbohydrates (8.8 g), and protein (3 g) per 100 ml. The intervention period lasted 4-7 weeks. Weekly weight and daily growth rates were compared with those of a standardized fortification group of very low birth weight preterm infants who received standard fortified human milk (n = 10). The osmolality as well as the metabolic and gastrointestinal tolerance were monitored. Intergroup differences were evaluated using the Mann-Whitney U-test. A total of 10 preterm infants (birth weight 1223 ± 195 g; gestational age 29.1 ± 1.03 weeks) were enrolled and 118 samples of pooled milk were analysed. On average, 1.4 ± 0.1 g of protein, 2.3 ± 0.5 g of carbohydrate, and 0.3 ± 0.1 g of fat per 100 ml were added to the milk. Osmolality values after target fortification were within recommended limits (376 ± 66 mOsml/kg). Weekly weight gain (205.5 g; 95 % CI 177-233 vs 155 g; 95 % CI 132-178; p = 0.025) and daily growth rates (15.7 g/kg/day; 95 % CI 14.5-16.9 vs 12.3 g/kg/day; 95 % CI 10.7-13.9; p = 0.005) were higher in infants receiving target fortification than in infants receiving standardized fortification. The infants receiving targeted fortified milk consumed similar volumes as infants in the standardized fortification group (148 ± 4.5 vs 146 ± 4 ml/kg/day). No signs of either gastrointestinal or metabolic intolerance were observed. Target fortification appears to promote growth in very low birth weight preterm infants without any detrimental effects. Trial registration NCT02716337.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 16%
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 5%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 34 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Unspecified 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 35 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 October 2017.
All research outputs
#14,856,861
of 22,880,230 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,977
of 4,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,912
of 351,902 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#55
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,880,230 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 351,902 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.