Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

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

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding, outcome: 1.1 Necrotising enterocolitis.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding, outcome: 1.1 Necrotising enterocolitis.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding, outcome: 1.2 Mortality prior to discharge.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding, outcome: 1.2 Mortality prior to discharge.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding, outcome: 1.3 Feed intolerance.
Figures and Tables -
Figure 4

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding, outcome: 1.3 Feed intolerance.

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding, outcome: 1.5 Duration of hospital admission (days).
Figures and Tables -
Figure 5

Forest plot of comparison: 1 Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding, outcome: 1.5 Duration of hospital admission (days).

Comparison 1 Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding, Outcome 1 Necrotising enterocolitis.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding, Outcome 1 Necrotising enterocolitis.

Comparison 1 Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding, Outcome 2 Mortality prior to discharge.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding, Outcome 2 Mortality prior to discharge.

Comparison 1 Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding, Outcome 3 Feed intolerance.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding, Outcome 3 Feed intolerance.

Comparison 1 Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding, Outcome 4 Incidence of invasive infection.
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding, Outcome 4 Incidence of invasive infection.

Comparison 1 Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding, Outcome 5 Duration of hospital admission (days).
Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding, Outcome 5 Duration of hospital admission (days).

Comparison 1. Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Necrotising enterocolitis Show forest plot

8

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 All trials

8

1092

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.93 [0.64, 1.34]

1.2 Trials of infants with intrauterine growth restriction or abnormal antenatal Doppler flow velocities

4

673

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.54, 1.41]

2 Mortality prior to discharge Show forest plot

7

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 All trials

7

967

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.18 [0.75, 1.88]

2.2 Trials of infants with intrauterine growth restriction or abnormal antenatal Doppler flow velocities

3

548

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.55, 2.05]

3 Feed intolerance Show forest plot

3

288

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.84 [0.62, 1.15]

4 Incidence of invasive infection Show forest plot

2

457

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.27 [0.95, 1.70]

5 Duration of hospital admission (days) Show forest plot

3

346

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.11 [0.31, 3.90]

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding