2016
DOI: 10.1038/pr.2016.26
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparing apples with apples: it is time for standardized reporting of neonatal nutrition and growth studies

Abstract: Review challenging to interpret and meta-analysis difficult to perform. Given that many studies are of small size, meta-analysis and Individual Participant Data meta-analysis would enhance interpretation of these data. Meta-analysis would be much more robust if there were an agreed upon set of international guidelines for standardized methodology and reporting of neonatal nutrition and growth outcomes. In this review, we present further analysis of the differences,

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
129
3
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 116 publications
(136 citation statements)
references
References 79 publications
2
129
3
2
Order By: Relevance
“…However, there is a lack of standardization of methods used to calculate preterm infant growth velocity which makes comparisons between studies difficult [27,28]. The growth reference used also did not include Chinese infants in its development which make comparisons difficult.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, there is a lack of standardization of methods used to calculate preterm infant growth velocity which makes comparisons between studies difficult [27,28]. The growth reference used also did not include Chinese infants in its development which make comparisons difficult.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A multiple regression analysis was used to compare feeding groups, with respect to weight and length/height growth alterations over time (Δz score) with adjustment for potential confounders such as GA, BW, gender, multiple births, age at follow-up, and mothers' social status. Data on catch-up and continuous growth have been handled as suggested by Cormack et al [12]. To compare groups for primary outcomes on growth (weight and length/height), z scores were calculated as: the difference between the actual growth and the expected reference growth divided by 1 SD, i.e., (BW -reference BW)/1 SD, for each gender.…”
Section: Statisticsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The body composition of preterm infants at term equivalent age is not comparable with term infants [12]. Babies born preterm are more likely to be growth-restricted compared with babies with an equal gestational age who remain in utero and are born at term age [13]. Furthermore, preterm infants are a vulnerable group who have increased nutritional requirements, are at risk of developing gastro-esophageal reflux, respiratory problems, and have delayed early gross motor development.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%