Cochrane · systematic review · CD012413
High versus standard volume enteral feeds to promote growth in preterm or low birth weight infants
Abiramalatha, T, Thomas, N, Thanigainathan, S · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2021 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
10
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 3 · 30%Very low 2 · 20%Low 3 · 30%Moderate 2 · 20%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyHigh compared to standard volume of fortified human milk or preterm formula in preterm or low birth weight infants
Population: preterm or low birth weight infants
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Weight gain during hospital stay (g/kg/day) High vs standard volume of fortified human milk or preterm formula | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 271 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Linear growth during hospital stay (cm/week) High vs standard volume of fortified human milk or preterm formula | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 271 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Head growth during hospital stay (cm/week) High vs standard volume of fortified human milk or preterm formula | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 271 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Extrauterine growth restriction at discharge High vs standard volume of fortified human milk or preterm formula | RR 0.71 [0.5, 1.02] | 2 studies · 271 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Necrotising enterocolitis High vs standard volume of fortified human milk or preterm formula | RR 0.74 [0.12, 4.51] | 2 studies · 283 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
High compared to standard volume of unfortified human milk or term formula in preterm or low birth weight infants
Population: preterm or low birth weight infants
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Weight gain during hospital stay (g/kg/day) High vs standard volume of unfortified human milk or term formula | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 61 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Linear growth (cm/week) High vs standard volume of unfortified human milk or term formula | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Head growth (cm/week) High vs standard volume of unfortified human milk or term formula | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Extrauterine growth restriction at discharge High vs standard volume of unfortified human milk or term formula | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Necrotising enterocolitis High vs standard volume of unfortified human milk or term formula | RR 1.03 [0.07, 15.78] | 1 study · 61 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
High‐volume feeds vs standard‐volume feeds for preterm or low birth weight infants
Population: preterm or low birth weight infants
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Weight gain (g/kg/d) High‐volume feeds vs standard‐volume feeds | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 61 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Feed intolerance High‐volume feeds vs standard‐volume feeds | RR 1.81 [0.89, 3.67] | 1 study · 61 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Necrotising enterocolitis High‐volume feeds vs standard‐volume feeds | RR 1.03 [0.07, 15.78] | 1 study · 61 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |