↓ Skip to main content

Optimizing Nutrition in Preterm Low Birth Weight Infants—Consensus Summary

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Nutrition, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
168 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
490 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
Optimizing Nutrition in Preterm Low Birth Weight Infants—Consensus Summary
Published in
Frontiers in Nutrition, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnut.2017.00020
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Kishore Kumar, Atul Singhal, Umesh Vaidya, Saswata Banerjee, Fahmina Anwar, Shashidhar Rao

Abstract

Preterm birth survivors are at a higher risk of growth and developmental disabilities compared to their term counterparts. Development of strategies to lower the complications of preterm birth forms the rising need of the hour. Appropriate nutrition is essential for the growth and development of preterm infants. Early administration of optimal nutrition to preterm birth survivors lowers the risk of adverse health outcomes and improves cognition in adulthood. A group of neonatologists, pediatricians, and nutrition experts convened to discuss and frame evidence-based recommendations for optimizing nutrition in preterm low birth weight (LBW) infants. The following were the primary recommendations of the panel: (1) enteral feeding is safe and may be preferred to parenteral nutrition due to the complications associated with the latter; however, parenteral nutrition may be a useful adjunct to enteral feeding in some critical cases; (2) early, fast, or continuous enteral feeding yields better outcomes compared to late, slow, or intermittent feeding, respectively; (3) routine use of nasogastric tubes is not advisable; (4) preterm infants can be fed while on ventilator or continuous positive airway pressure; (5) routine evaluation of gastric residuals and abdominal girth should be avoided; (6) expressed breast milk (EBM) is the first choice for feeding preterm infants due to its beneficial effects on cardiovascular, neurological, bone health, and growth outcomes; the second choice is donor pasteurized human milk; (7) EBM or donor milk may be fortified with human milk fortifiers, without increasing the osmolality of the milk, to meet the high protein requirements of preterm infants; (8) standard fortification is effective and safe but does not fulfill the high protein needs; (9) use of targeted and adjustable fortification, where possible, helps provide optimal nutrition; (10) optimizing weight gain in preterm infants prevents long-term cardiovascular complications; (11) checking for optimal weight and sucking/swallowing ability is essential prior to discharge of preterm infants; and (12) appropriate counseling and regular follow-up and monitoring after discharge will help achieve better long-term health outcomes. This consensus summary serves as a useful guide to clinicians in addressing the challenges and providing optimal nutrition to preterm LBW infants.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 490 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 490 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 72 15%
Student > Bachelor 58 12%
Researcher 45 9%
Other 33 7%
Student > Postgraduate 27 6%
Other 73 15%
Unknown 182 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 160 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 72 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 1%
Other 31 6%
Unknown 190 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 17 November 2023.
All research outputs
#2,360,511
of 24,829,155 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Nutrition
#891
of 6,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,156
of 318,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Nutrition
#5
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,829,155 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
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 318,630 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.