-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Routine monitoring of gastric residuals in preterm infants on tube feeds is a common practice in neonatal intensive care units used to guide initiation and advancement... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Routine monitoring of gastric residuals in preterm infants on tube feeds is a common practice in neonatal intensive care units used to guide initiation and advancement of enteral feeding. There is a paucity of consensus on whether to re-feed or discard the aspirated gastric residuals. While re-feeding gastric residuals may aid in digestion and promote gastrointestinal motility and maturation by replacing partially digested milk, gastrointestinal enzymes, hormones, and trophic substances, abnormal residuals may result in vomiting, necrotising enterocolitis, or sepsis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of re-feeding when compared to discarding gastric residuals in preterm infants. SEARCH METHODS: Searches were conducted in February 2022 in Cochrane CENTRAL via CRS, Ovid MEDLINE and Embase, and CINAHL. We also searched clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected RCTs that compared re-feeding versus discarding gastric residuals in preterm infants.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data, in duplicate. We analysed treatment effects in individual trials and reported the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and the mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We found one eligible trial that included 72 preterm infants. The trial was unmasked but was otherwise of good methodological quality. Re-feeding gastric residual may have little or no effect on time to regain birth weight (MD 0.40 days, 95% CI -2.89 to 3.69; 59 infants; low-certainty evidence), risk of necrotising enterocolitis stage ≥ 2 or spontaneous intestinal perforation (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.04; 72 infants; low-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality before hospital discharge (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.85; 72 infants; low-certainty evidence), time to establish enteral feeds ≥ 120 mL/kg/d (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.93 to 0.33; 59 infants; low-certainty evidence), number of total parenteral nutrition days (MD -0.30 days, 95% CI -2.07 to 1.47; 59 infants; low-certainty evidence), and risk of extrauterine growth restriction at discharge (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.34; 59 infants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain as to the effect of re-feeding gastric residual on number of episodes of feed interruption lasting for ≥ 12 hours (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.52; 59 infants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found only limited data from one small unmasked trial on the efficacy and safety of re-feeding gastric residuals in preterm infants. Low-certainty evidence suggests re-feeding gastric residual may have little or no effect on important clinical outcomes such as necrotising enterocolitis, all-cause mortality before hospital discharge, time to establish enteral feeds, number of total parenteral nutrition days, and in-hospital weight gain. A large RCT is needed to assess the efficacy and safety of re-feeding of gastric residuals in preterm infants with adequate certainty of evidence to inform policy and practice.
Topics: Infant; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Enterocolitis, Necrotizing; Infant, Premature; Stomach; Birth Weight; Cognition
PubMed: 37387544
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012940.pub3 -
Addictive Behaviors Sep 2024The present systematic review aims to identify electronic interventions for addressing substance use and understand their effectiveness in primary care settings. A... (Review)
Review
The present systematic review aims to identify electronic interventions for addressing substance use and understand their effectiveness in primary care settings. A systematic search was carried out in the Web of Science, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. The search included the keywords "electronic intervention", "substance use", "primary care" and synonyms. To determine the quality and recommendation of the analyzed interventions, the efficacy results reported by the studies were considered, as well as the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) assessment and the GRADE Evidence Assessment. Twenty-one electronic interventions in Primary Care were identified: internet, mobile or tablet applications, text messages, emails, automated telephone calls, or electronic self-reports. These interventions had diverse components, incorporating theories that have proven effective in face-to-face interventions as their theoretical frameworks. Some of them were complementary to in-person treatment, while others replaced it. Six interventions (28.5 %) displayed high quality: HealthCall, AB-CASI, Quit Genius, eCHECKUP-TOGO, CBI, and TES. Another nine interventions (42.8 %) were found to have moderate-high quality: Alcohol y Salud, IVR-BI, Program of Wallace et al., Let's Talk About Smoking, SMSalud, ESCAPE, AAC-ASPIRE, iQuit, and Programa VIH. One intervention (4.7 %) had moderate-low quality: Vive sin tabaco ¡Decídete! The remaining five interventions (23.8 %) were found to have very low quality: Connection to health, cSBI, Teen Well Check, the program of Helzer et al. (2008), and Down your drink. The programs with the highest recommendation for addressing alcohol-related issues are HealthCall and AB-CASI; for tobacco use, it is Quit Genius; for cannabis use, it is eCHECKUP-TOGO; for addressing both legal and illegal substances, it is CBI and TES. Finally, for specific illicit drug use, the only recommended program is CBI. This last intervention, CBI, is of the highest quality and, therefore, can be considered a model intervention for dissemination in the primary care setting.
Topics: Humans; Primary Health Care; Substance-Related Disorders; Text Messaging; Telemedicine; Internet; Mobile Applications; Electronic Mail
PubMed: 38821009
DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2024.108073