Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants

This is not the most recent version

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001241.pub5Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 02 December 2014see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Neonatal Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2014 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Jessie Morgan

    Hull York Medical School & Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK

  • Lauren Young

    Neonatal Unit, Mercy Hospital for Women, Heidelberg, Australia

  • William McGuire

    Correspondence to: Hull York Medical School & Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK

    [email protected]

Contributions of authors

Drs Young and McGuire updated the search, independently determined the eligibility of identified studies, assessed the methodological quality of the included trials, and extracted the relevant information and data.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Hull York Medical School, UK.

External sources

  • National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK.

    NIHR Cochrane Programme Grant (13/89/12)

  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, USA.

    Editorial support of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group has been funded with Federal funds from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, USA, under Contract No. HHSN267200603418C.

Declarations of interest

None

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Drs Namasivayam Ambalavanan and Kanya Mukhopadhyay for providing further details and data (Rayyis 1999; Mukhopadhyay 2014).

This report is independent research funded by a UK National Institute for Health Research Grant (NIHR) Cochrane Programme Grant (13/89/12). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the UK Department of Health.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2021 Aug 24

Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants

Review

Sam J Oddie, Lauren Young, William McGuire

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001241.pub8

2017 Aug 30

Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants

Review

Sam J Oddie, Lauren Young, William McGuire

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001241.pub7

2015 Oct 15

Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants

Review

Jessie Morgan, Lauren Young, William McGuire

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001241.pub6

2014 Dec 02

Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants

Review

Jessie Morgan, Lauren Young, William McGuire

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001241.pub5

2013 Mar 28

Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants

Review

Jessie Morgan, Lauren Young, William McGuire

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001241.pub4

2011 Mar 16

Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants

Review

Jessie Morgan, Lauren Young, William McGuire

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001241.pub3

2008 Apr 23

Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants

Review

William McGuire, Sarah Bombell

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001241.pub2

1998 Oct 26

Rapid versus slow rate of advancement of feedings for promoting growth and preventing necrotizing enterocolitis in parenterally fed low‐birth‐weight infants

Review

Kathleen A Kennedy, Jon E Tyson

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001241

Keywords

MeSH

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Slow versus faster rates of feed advancement, outcome: 1.1 Incidence of necrotising enterocolitis.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Slow versus faster rates of feed advancement, outcome: 1.1 Incidence of necrotising enterocolitis.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Slow versus faster rates of feed advancement, outcome: 1.2 Mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Slow versus faster rates of feed advancement, outcome: 1.2 Mortality.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Slow versus faster rates of feed advancement, outcome: 1.3 Feeds intolerance (causing interruption of enteral feeding).
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Slow versus faster rates of feed advancement, outcome: 1.3 Feeds intolerance (causing interruption of enteral feeding).

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Slow versus faster rates of feed advancement, outcome: 1.4 Incidence of invasive infection.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Slow versus faster rates of feed advancement, outcome: 1.4 Incidence of invasive infection.

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 5

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Comparison 1 Slow versus faster rates of feed advancement, Outcome 1 Incidence of necrotising enterocolitis.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Slow versus faster rates of feed advancement, Outcome 1 Incidence of necrotising enterocolitis.

Comparison 1 Slow versus faster rates of feed advancement, Outcome 2 Mortality.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Slow versus faster rates of feed advancement, Outcome 2 Mortality.

Comparison 1 Slow versus faster rates of feed advancement, Outcome 3 Feeds intolerance (causing interruption of enteral feeding).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Slow versus faster rates of feed advancement, Outcome 3 Feeds intolerance (causing interruption of enteral feeding).

Comparison 1 Slow versus faster rates of feed advancement, Outcome 4 Incidence of invasive infection.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Slow versus faster rates of feed advancement, Outcome 4 Incidence of invasive infection.

Comparison 1. Slow versus faster rates of feed advancement

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Incidence of necrotising enterocolitis Show forest plot

6

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 All trials

6

618

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.55, 1.70]

1.2 Trials in which most infants were small for gestational age or growth restricted

2

83

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.06, 2.04]

2 Mortality Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 All trials

5

460

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.57 [0.92, 2.70]

2.2 Trials in which most infants were small for gestational age or growth restricted

2

83

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.13 [1.02, 4.47]

3 Feeds intolerance (causing interruption of enteral feeding) Show forest plot

4

275

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.23 [0.87, 1.73]

4 Incidence of invasive infection Show forest plot

3

222

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.58 [0.81, 3.09]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Slow versus faster rates of feed advancement