Cochrane · systematic review · CD013542
Early full enteral feeding for preterm or low birth weight infants
Walsh, V, Brown, JV, Copperthwaite, BR, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2020 · Cochrane Library
NeonatalAMSTAR 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
4
current version
GRADE rated
3
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 25%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 50%Low 1 · 25%Moderate 0 · 0%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
Early full enteral feeding compared to delayed or progressive feeding for preterm or low birth weight infants
Population: preterm or low birth weight infants
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
In hospital rate of weight gain (g/kg/day) until term equivalent Early full enteral feeding vs delayed or progressive feeding | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 236 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
In hospital rate of head circumference growth (cm/week) until term equivalent – not reported Early full enteral feeding vs delayed or progressive feeding | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Growth restriction (z‐score of weight) at hospital discharge Early full enteral feeding vs delayed or progressive feeding | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 46 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Necrotising enterocolitis Early full enteral feeding vs delayed or progressive feeding | RR 0.98 [0.38, 2.54] | 6 studies · 522 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |