Delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Ir a:

Figure 1

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

Figure 2

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

Figure 3

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

Figure 4

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

Figure 5

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

Analysis 1.1

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

Analysis 1.2

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

Analysis 1.3

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

Analysis 1.4

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

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]

Comparison 1. Delayed versus early introduction of progressive enteral feeding