MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4211134082 · doi:10.1002/cl2.1141

Effects of neonatal nutrition interventions on neonatal mortality and child health and development outcomes: A systematic review

2021· review· en· W4211134082 sur OpenAlexaff
Aamer Imdad, Faseeha Rehman, Evan W. Davis, Deepika Ranjit, Gamael Saint Surin, Suzanna Attia, Sarah Lawler, Abigail Smith, Zulfiqar A Bhutta

Notice bibliographique

RevueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineNursing
ThématiqueChild Nutrition and Water Access
Établissements canadiensSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychological interventionNeonatal mortalityMedicineChild healthPediatricsIntensive care medicineInfant mortalityEnvironmental healthNursingPopulation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background The last two decades have seen a significant decrease in mortality for children <5 years of age in low and middle-income countries (LMICs); however, neonatal (age, 0–28 days) mortality has not decreased at the same rate. We assessed three neonatal nutritional interventions that have the potential of reducing morbidity and mortality during infancy in LMICs. Objectives To determine the efficacy and effectiveness of synthetic vitamin A, dextrose oral gel, and probiotic supplementation during the neonatal period. Search Methods We conducted electronic searches for relevant studies on the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS, SCOPUS, and CENTRAL, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, up to November 27, 2019. Selection Criteria We aimed to include randomized and quasi-experimental studies. The target population was neonates in LMICs. The interventions included synthetic vitamin A supplementation, oral dextrose gel supplementation, and probiotic supplementation during the neonatal period. We included studies from the community and hospital settings irrespective of the gestational age or birth weight of the neonate. Data Collection and Analysis Two authors screened the titles and extracted the data from selected studies. The risk of bias (ROB) in the included studies was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were neonatal sepsis, necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), prevention and treatment of neonatal hypoglycaemia, adverse events, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. Data were meta-analyzed by random effect models to obtain relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. The overall rating of evidence was determined by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Main Results Sixteen randomized studies (total participants 169,366) assessed the effect of vitamin A supplementation during the neonatal period. All studies were conducted in low- and middle-income (LMIC) countries. Thirteen studies were conducted in the community setting and three studies were conducted in the hospital setting, specifically in neonatal intensive care units. Studies were conducted in 10 different countries including India (four studies), Guinea-Bissau (three studies), Bangladesh (two studies), and one study each in China, Ghana, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe. The overall ROB was low in most of the included studies for neonatal vitamin A supplementation. The pooled results from the community based randomized studies showed that there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality in the vitamin A (intervention) group compared to controls at 1 month (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90–1.08; six studies with 126,548 participants, statistical heterogeneity I 2 0%, funnel plot symmetrical, grade rating high), 6 months (RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89–1.07; 12 studies with 154,940 participants, statistical heterogeneity I 2 43%, funnel plot symmetrical, GRADE quality high) and 12 months of age (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94–1.14; eight studies with 118,376 participants, statistical heterogeneity I 2 46%, funnel plot symmetrical, GRADE quality high). Neonatal vitamin A supplementation increased the incidence of bulging fontanelle by 53% compared to control (RR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12–2.09; six studies with 100,256 participants, statistical heterogeneity I 2 65%, funnel plot symmetrical, GRADE quality high). We did not identify any experimental study that addressed the use of dextrose gel for the prevention and/or treatment of neonatal hypoglycaemia in LMIC. Thirty-three studies assessed the effect of probiotic supplementation during the neonatal period (total participants 11,595; probiotics: 5854 and controls: 5741). All of the included studies were conducted in LMIC and were randomized. Most of the studies were done in the hospital setting and included participants who were preterm (born < 37 weeks gestation) and/or low birth weight (<2500 g birth weight). Studies were conducted in 13 different countries with 10 studies conducted in India, six studies in Turkey, three studies each in China and Iran, two each in Mexico and South Africa, and one each in Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, and Thailand. Three studies were at high ROB due to lack of appropriate randomization sequence or allocation concealment. Combined data from 25 studies showed that probiotic supplementation reduced all-cause mortality by 20% compared to controls (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66–0.96; total number of participants 10,998, number needed to treat 100, statistical heterogeneity I 2 0%, funnel plot symmetrical, GRADE quality high). Twenty-nine studies reported the effect of probiotics on the incidence of NEC, and the combined results showed a relative reduction of 54% in the intervention group compared to controls (RR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.35–0.59; total number of participants 5574, number needed to treat 17, statistical heterogeneity I 2 24%, funnel plot symmetrical, GRADE quality high). Twenty-one studies assessed the effect of probiotic supplementation during the neonatal period on neonatal sepsis, and the combined results showed a relative reduction of 22% in the intervention group compared to controls (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.70–0.86; total number of participants 9105, number needed to treat 14, statistical heterogeneity I 2 23%, funnel plot symmetrical, GRADE quality high). Authors' Conclusions Vitamin A supplementation during the neonatal period does not reduce all-cause neonatal or infant mortality in LMICs in the community setting. However, neonatal vitamin A supplementation increases the risk of Bulging Fontanelle. No experimental or quasi-experimental studies were available from LMICs to assess the effect of dextrose gel supplementation for the prevention or treatment of neonatal hypoglycaemia. Probiotic supplementation during the neonatal period seems to reduce all-cause mortality, NEC, and sepsis in babies born with low birth weight and/or preterm in the hospital setting. There was clinical heterogeneity in the use of probiotics, and we could not recommend any single strain of probiotics for wider use based on these results. There was a lack of studies on probiotic supplementation in the community setting. More research is needed to assess the effect of probiotics administered to neonates in-home/community setting in LMICs.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,012
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,041

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,032
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0120,011
Bibliométrie0,0060,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,106
Tête enseignante GPT0,398
Écart entre enseignants0,292 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations10
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCampbell Systematic ReviewsMême sujetChild Nutrition and Water AccessTravaux en français237 207