Faculty Opinions recommendation of Prophylactic early erythropoietin for neuroprotection in preterm infants: a meta-analysis.

Author(s):  
Michael Johnston
2014 ◽  
Vol 99 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. A473.4-A474
Author(s):  
GM Schmolzer ◽  
M Kumar ◽  
K Aziz ◽  
G Pichler ◽  
M O’Reilly ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Jogender Kumar ◽  
Jitendra Meena ◽  
Piyush Mittal ◽  
Jeeva Shankar ◽  
Praveen Kumar ◽  
...  

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 2089
Author(s):  
Machiko Suganuma ◽  
Alice R. Rumbold ◽  
Jacqueline Miller ◽  
Yan Fong Chong ◽  
Carmel T. Collins

Human milk (HM) is the gold standard for feeding infants but has been associated with slower growth in preterm infants compared with preterm formula. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarises the post-1990 literature to examine the effect of HM feeding on growth during the neonatal admission of preterm infants with birth weight ≤1500 g and/or born ≤28 weeks’ gestation. Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, and Scopus were searched, and comparisons were grouped as exclusive human milk (EHM) vs. exclusive preterm formula (EPTF), any HM vs. EPTF, and higher vs. lower doses of HM. We selected studies that used fortified HM and compared that with a PTF; studies comparing unfortified HM and term formula were excluded. Experimental and observational studies were pooled separately. The GRADE system was used to evaluate risk of bias and certainty of evidence. Forty-four studies were included with 37 (n = 9963 infants) included in the meta-analyses. In general, due to poor quality studies, evidence of the effect of any HM feeds or higher versus lower doses of HM was inconclusive. There was a possible effect that lower doses of HM compared with higher doses of HM improved weight gain during the hospital admission, and separately, a possible effect of increased head circumference growth in infants fed EPTF vs. any HM. The clinical significance of this is unclear. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effects of an exclusive HM diet on any outcomes.


The Lancet ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 375 (9731) ◽  
pp. 2082-2091 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filip Cools ◽  
Lisa M Askie ◽  
Martin Offringa ◽  
Jeanette M Asselin ◽  
Sandra A Calvert ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Danna Chen ◽  
Zhen Yang ◽  
Chujie Chen ◽  
Pu Wang

Objective This review article aimed to explore the effect of oral motor intervention on oral feeding in preterm infants through a meta-analysis. Method Eligible studies were retrieved from four databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) up to July 2020 and screened based on established selection criteria. Thereafter, relevant data were extracted and heterogeneity tests were conducted to select appropriate effect models according to the chi-square test and I 2 statistics. Assessment of risk of bias was performed among the included studies. Finally, a meta-analysis was carried out to evaluate the effect of oral motor intervention in preterm infants according to four clinical indicators: transition time for oral feeding, length of hospital stay, feeding efficiency, and weight gain. Results Eighteen randomized controlled trials with 848 participants were selected to evaluate the effect of oral motor intervention on preterm infants. The meta-analysis results revealed that oral motor intervention could effectively reduce the transition time to full oral feeds and the length of hospital stay as well as increase feeding efficiency and weight gain. Conclusions Oral motor intervention was an effective way to improve oral feeding in preterm infants. It is worthy to be used widely in hospitals to improve the clinical outcomes of preterm infants and reduce the economic burdens of families and society. Future studies should seek to identify detailed intervention processes and intervention durations for clinical application.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document