Slow vs faster rates of enteral feed advancement: Necrotising enterocolitis
Slow showed no clear difference in necrotising enterocolitis before hospital discharge compared with faster rates of enteral feed advancement (moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Slow vs faster rates of enteral feed advancement Necrotising enterocolitis before hospital discharge · very preterm or very low birth weight infants Slow showed no clear difference in necrotising enterocolitis before hospital discharge compared with faster rates of enteral feed advancement (moderate certainty). Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants (2021) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1.06 [0.83, 1.37] | 14 studies · 4026 participants | Moderate |
Slow vs faster rates of enteral feed advancement Incidence of necrotising enterocolitis ‐ All infants · very preterm or very low birth weight infants Slow showed no clear difference in incidence of necrotising enterocolitis ‐ All infants compared with faster rates of enteral feed advancement (moderate certainty). Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants (2017) · Cochrane Headline outcomes onlyearlier version CD001241.PUB7, superseded | RR 1.07 [0.83, 1.39] | 10 studies · 3738 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.