↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Carbohydrate supplementation of human milk to promote growth in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

7 tweeters
1 Facebook page


5 Dimensions

Readers on

121 Mendeley
Carbohydrate supplementation of human milk to promote growth in preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000280.pub2
Pubmed ID

Emma A Amissah, Julie Brown, Jane E Harding


Preterm infants are born with low glycogen stores and require higher glucose intake to match fetal accretion rates. In spite of the myriad benefits of breast milk for preterm infants, it may not adequately meet the needs of these rapidly growing infants. Supplementing human milk with carbohydrates may help. However, there is a paucity of data on assessment of benefits or harms of carbohydrate supplementation of human milk to promote growth in preterm infants. This is a 2018 update of a Cochrane Review first published in 1999. To determine whether human milk supplemented with carbohydrate compared with unsupplemented human milk fed to preterm infants improves growth, body composition, and cardio-metabolic and neurodevelopmental outcomes without significant adverse effects. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to 21 February 2018), Embase (1980 to 21 February 2018), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 21 February 2018). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised trials. Published and unpublished controlled trials were eligible if they used random or quasi-random methods to allocate preterm infants in hospital fed human milk to supplementation or no supplementation with additional carbohydrate. Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed trial quality and the quality of evidence at the outcome level using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method. We planned to perform meta-analyses using risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We planned to use a fixed-effect model and to explore potential causes of heterogeneity via sensitivity analyses. We contacted study authors for additional information. One unblinded, quasi-randomised controlled trial (RCT) assessing effects of carbohydrate supplementation of human milk in the form of a prebiotic in 75 preterm infants was eligible for inclusion in this review. We identified two publications of the same trial, which reported different methods regarding blinding and randomisation. Study authors confirmed that these publications pertain to the same trial, but they have not yet clarified which method is correct. We were unable to reproduce analyses from the data presented. At 30 days of age, the mean weight of preterm infants in the trial was greater in the prebiotic carbohydrate-supplemented group than in the unsupplemented group (MD 160.4 grams, 95% CI 12.4 to 308.4 grams; one RCT, N = 75; very low-quality evidence). We found no evidence of a clear difference in risk of feeding intolerance (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.15; one RCT, N = 75 infants; very low-quality evidence) or necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.3; one RCT, N = 75 infants; very low-quality evidence) between the prebiotic-supplemented group and the unsupplemented group. Duration of hospital stay was shorter in the prebiotic group than in the control group at a median (range) of 16 (9 to 45) days (95% CI 15.34 to 24.09) and 25 (11 to 80) days (95% CI 25.52 to 34.39), respectively. No other data were available for assessing effects of carbohydrate supplementation on short- and long-term growth, body mass index, body composition, and neurodevelopmental or cardio-metabolic outcomes. We found insufficient evidence on the short- and long-term effects of carbohydrate supplementation of human milk in preterm infants. The only trial included in this review presented very low-quality evidence, and study authors provided uncertain information about study methods and analysis. The evidence may be limited in its applicability because researchers included a small sample of preterm infants from a single centre. However, the outcomes assessed are common to all preterm infants, and this trial demonstrates the feasibility of prebiotic carbohydrate supplementation in upper-middle-income countries. Future trials should assess the safety and efficacy of different types and concentrations of carbohydrate supplementation for preterm infants fed human milk. Although prebiotic carbohydrate supplementation in preterm infants is currently a topic of active research, we do not envisage that further trials of digestible carbohydrates will be conducted, as this is currently done as a component of multi-nutrient human milk fortification. Hence we do not plan to publish any further updates of this review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 21%
Student > Master 16 13%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 7 6%
Other 16 13%
Unknown 32 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 15%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 40 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 November 2020.
All research outputs
of 17,697,618 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,734 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 284,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 165 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,697,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,734 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 284,981 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 165 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.