Cochrane · systematic review · CD012937

Routine monitoring of gastric residual for prevention of necrotising enterocolitis in preterm infants

Abiramalatha, T, Thanigainathan, S, Ramaswamy, VV, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023 · Cochrane Library

Neonatal2 versionsAMSTAR 2: not assessed
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
14
current version
GRADE rated
14
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 1 · 7.1%Low 9 · 64.3%Moderate 4 · 28.6%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

Show all 2 versions

Summary of findings table ‐ routine monitoring vs. no routine monitoring of gastric residual in preterm infants

Population: preterm infants
7 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Risk of necrotising enterocolitis stage ≥ 2
Summary of findings table ‐ routine monitoring vs no routine monitoring of gastric residual
RR 1.08 [0.46, 2.57]4 studies · 334 participantsModerate
Downgraded: imprecision
Time to establish full enteral feeds (days)
Summary of findings table ‐ routine monitoring vs no routine monitoring of gastric residual
no estimate extracted4 studies · 334 participantsModerate
Downgraded: imprecision
Time to regain birth weight (days)
Summary of findings table ‐ routine monitoring vs no routine monitoring of gastric residual
no estimate extracted1 study · 80 participantsLow
Downgraded: imprecision
Number of infants with feed interruption episodes (lasting ≥ 12 hours)
Summary of findings table ‐ routine monitoring vs no routine monitoring of gastric residual
RR 2.21 [1.53, 3.2]3 studies · 191 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
Number of total parenteral nutrition days
Summary of findings table ‐ routine monitoring vs no routine monitoring of gastric residual
no estimate extracted4 studies · 334 participantsModerate
Downgraded: imprecision
Risk of invasive infection
Summary of findings table ‐ routine monitoring vs no routine monitoring of gastric residual
RR 1.5 [1.02, 2.19]4 studies · 334 participantsModerate
Downgraded: imprecision
All‐cause mortality before hospital discharge
Summary of findings table ‐ routine monitoring vs no routine monitoring of gastric residual
RR 2.14 [0.77, 5.97]3 studies · 273 participantsLow
Downgraded: imprecision

Summary of findings table ‐ Quality and volume of gastric residual compared to quality of gastric residual alone for feed interruption in preterm infants

Population: feed interruption while monitoring gastric residual
7 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Risk of necrotising enterocolitis stage ≥ 2
Summary of findings table ‐ Quality and volume of gastric residual vs quality of gastric residual alone
RR 5.35 [0.26, 108.27]1 study · 87 participantsLow
Downgraded: imprecision
Time to establish full enteral feeds
Summary of findings table ‐ Quality and volume of gastric residual vs quality of gastric residual alone
no estimate extracted1 study · 87 participantsLow
Downgraded: imprecision
Time to regain birth weight (days)
Summary of findings table ‐ Quality and volume of gastric residual vs quality of gastric residual alone
no estimate extracted1 study · 87 participantsLow
Downgraded: imprecision
Number of infants with feed interruption episodes (lasting ≥ 12 hours)
Summary of findings table ‐ Quality and volume of gastric residual vs quality of gastric residual alone
RR 3.21 [0.13, 76.67]1 study · 87 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Number of total parenteral nutrition days
Summary of findings table ‐ Quality and volume of gastric residual vs quality of gastric residual alone
no estimate extracted1 study · 87 participantsLow
Downgraded: imprecision
Risk of invasive Infection
Summary of findings table ‐ Quality and volume of gastric residual vs quality of gastric residual alone
RR 5.35 [0.26, 108.27]1 study · 87 participantsLow
Downgraded: imprecision
All‐cause mortality before hospital discharge
Summary of findings table ‐ Quality and volume of gastric residual vs quality of gastric residual alone
RR 3.21 [0.13, 76.67]1 study · 87 participantsLow
Downgraded: imprecision