↓ Skip to main content

The timing of complementary feeding in preterm infants and the effect on overweight: study protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The timing of complementary feeding in preterm infants and the effect on overweight: study protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0324-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karin M. Vissers, Edith J. M. Feskens, Johannes B. van Goudoever, Arieke J. Janse

Abstract

In term infants, there is evidence that early complementary feeding is a risk factor for childhood obesity. Therefore, timely introduction of complementary feeding during infancy is necessary. The World Health Organization (WHO) and European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) both developed recommendations for the start of complementary feeding for term-born infants. However, these guidelines cannot be directly translated to preterm infants. Recent literature looking at the introduction of complementary feeding in preterm infants gives contrasting information. Given these contrasting reports on the introduction of solid foods in premature born infants, a systematic review is needed. The primary objective of this study is to analyze the effect of the time starting complementary feeding on overweight (including obesity) in preterm infants. An electronic systematic literature search with pre-defined terms will be conducted in Cochrane, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL. There will be no restriction for time period. Primarily, data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be included in this systematic review. Search terms will include preterm infants, complementary feeding, overweight, and their synonyms. Article selection, including risk of bias assessment, will be performed by three reviewers independently. Body mass index standard deviation score (BMI-SDS or BMI-Z-score) will be used to compare studies. The consistency of results across the studies will influence the decision whether or not to combine results in a meta-analysis. Studies that cannot be included in the meta-analysis will be described in a narrative analysis. This systematic review will give an overview of the existing knowledge on the timing of complementary feeding in preterm infants and the effect on overweight. It will form a basis for future guidelines for complementary feeding for preterm infants. PROSPERO CRD42015014215.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 19%
Student > Bachelor 11 17%
Researcher 8 13%
Other 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 15 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Psychology 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 20 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 January 2018.
All research outputs
#10,953,767
of 13,785,324 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,048
of 1,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,718
of 272,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,785,324 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,846 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them