Continuous nasogastric milk feeding versus intermittent bolus milk feeding for premature infants less than 1500 grams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Milk feedings can be given via nasogastric tube either intermittently, typically over 10 to 20 minutes every two or three hours, or continuously, using an infusion pump. Although theoretical benefits and risks of each method have been proposed, effects on clinically important outcomes remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To examine the evidence regarding the effectiveness of continuous versus intermittent bolus nasogastric milk feeding in premature infants less than 1500 grams. SEARCH METHODS: Searches were performed of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2011), MEDLINE, CINAHL and HealthSTAR up to July 2011. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials comparing continuous versus intermittent bolus nasogastric milk feeding in premature infants less than 1500 grams. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed all trials for relevance and methodologic quality. The standard methods of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group were used to extract data. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, the seven included trials, involving 511 infants, found no differences in time to achieve full enteral feeds between feeding methods (weighted mean difference (WMD) 2 days; 95% CI -0.3 to 3.9) . In the subgroup analysis of those studies comparing continuous nasogastric versus intermittent bolus nasogastric milk feedings the findings remained unchanged (WMD 2 days, 95% CI -0.4 to 4.1). There was no significant difference in somatic growth and incidence of NEC between feeding methods irrespective of tube placement. One study noted a trend toward more apneas during the study period in infants fed by the continuous tube feeding method compared to those fed by intermittent feedings delivered predominantly by orogastric tube placements [mean difference (MD) 14.0 apneas during study period; 95% CI -0.2 to 28.2]. In subgroup analysis based on weight groups, one study suggested that infants less than 1000 grams and 1000 to 1250 grams birth weight gained weight faster when fed by the continuous nasogastric tube feeding method compared to intermittent nasogastric tube feeding method (MD 2.0 g/day; 95% CI 0.5 to 3.5; MD 2.0 g/day; 95% CI 0.2 to 3.8, respectively). A trend toward earlier discharge for infants less than 1000 grams birth weight fed by the continuous tube feeding method compared to intermittent nasogastric tube feeding method (MD -11 days; 95% CI -21.8 to -0.2). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Small sample sizes, methodologic limitations, inconsistencies in controlling variables that may affect outcomes, and conflicting results of the studies to date make it difficult to make universal recommendations regarding the best tube feeding method for premature infants less than 1500 grams. The clinical benefits and risks of continuous versus intermittent nasogastric tube milk feeding cannot be reliably discerned from the limited information available from randomised trials to date.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".