↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Alternative lipid emulsions versus pure soy oil based lipid emulsions for parenterally fed preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
10 tweeters
3 Facebook pages


52 Dimensions

Readers on

256 Mendeley
Alternative lipid emulsions versus pure soy oil based lipid emulsions for parenterally fed preterm infants
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009172.pub2
Pubmed ID

Vishal Kapoor, Rebecca Glover, Manoj N Malviya


The pure soybean oil based lipid emulsions (S-LE) conventionally used for parenteral nutrition (PN) in preterm infants have high polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) content. The newer lipid emulsions (LE) from alternative lipid sources with reduced PUFA content may improve clinical outcomes in preterm infants. To determine the safety and efficacy of the newer alternative LE compared with the conventional S-LE for PN in preterm infants. We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group (CNRG) to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 7), MEDLINE (1946 to 31 July 2015), EMBASE (1947 to 31 July 2015), CINAHL (1982 to 31 July 2015), Web of Science (31 July 2015), conference proceedings, trial registries (clinicaltrials.gov, controlled-trials.com, WHO's ICTRP), and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials. Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in preterm infants (< 37 weeks), comparing newer alternative LE with S-LE. Data collection and analysis conformed to the methods of the CNRG. We assessed the quality of evidence for important outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, in addition to reporting the conventional statistical significance of results. Fifteen studies (N = 979 infants) are included in this review. Alternative LE including medium chain triglycerides/long chain triglycerides (MCT/LCT) LE (3 studies; n = 108), MCT-olive-fish-soy oil-LE (MOFS-LE; 7 studies; n = 469), MCT-fish-soy oil-LE (MFS-LE; 1 study; n = 60), olive-soy oil-LE (OS-LE; 7 studies; n = 406), and borage-soy oil-LE (BS-LE; 1 study; n = 34) were compared with S-LE. The different LE were also considered together to compare 'all fish oil containing-LE' versus S-LE (7 studies; n = 499) and 'all alternative LE' versus S-LE (15 studies; n = 979). Some studies had multiple intervention arms and were included in more than one comparison. No study compared pure fish oil-LE or structured-LE to S-LE.The GRADE quality of evidence (GRADE QoE) ranged from 'low' to 'very low.' Evidence came mostly from small single centre studies, many focusing on biochemical aspects as their primary outcomes, with optimal information size not achieved for the important clinical outcomes in any comparison.In the primary outcomes of the review there was a pooled effect towards decreased bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in OS-LE vs S-LE (4 studies, n = 261) not reaching statistical significance (typical risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 1.04, I² = 32%; typical risk difference (RD) -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.00, I² = 76%; GRADE QoE: 'very low'). No difference in BPD was observed in any other comparison. There were no statistically significant differences in the primary outcomes of death, growth rate (g/kg/day) or days to regain birth weight in any comparison.Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) stage 1-2 was reported to be statistically significantly lower in one single centre study (n = 80) in the MOFS-LE group compared with the S-LE group (1/40 vs 12/40, respectively; RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.61; RD -0.27, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.12; number needed to benefit (NNTB) 4, 95% CI 2 to 8). However there were no statistically significant differences in the secondary outcome of ROP ≥ stage 3 in any of the individual studies or in any comparison (GRADE QoE: 'low' to 'very low'). No other study reported on ROP stages 1 and 2 separately.There were no statistically significant differences in the secondary outcomes of sepsis, PN associated liver disease (PNALD)/cholestasis, ventilation duration, necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) ≥ stage 2, jaundice requiring treatment, intraventricular haemorrhage grade III-IV, periventricular leukomalacia (PVL), patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), hypertriglyceridaemia, and hyperglycaemia in any comparison.No study reported on neurodevelopmental outcomes or essential fatty acid deficiency. All lipid emulsions in this review appeared to be safe and were well tolerated in preterm infants. Compared with the pure soy oil based LE, use of MOFS-LE was associated with a decrease in the early stages (1-2) of ROP in one study. However there were no statistically significant differences in clinically important outcomes including death, growth, BPD, sepsis, ROP ≥ stage 3, and PNALD with the use of newer alternative LE versus the conventional pure soy oil based LE (GRADE QoE ranged from 'low' to 'very low'). Currently there is insufficient evidence to recommend any alternative LE over S-LE or vice versa in preterm infants.Larger randomised studies focusing on important clinical outcomes, targeting specific 'at risk' population subgroups (e.g. extreme prematurity, long term PN, etc), and exploring the effect of different proportions of lipid constituents are required to evaluate the effectiveness of newer lipid emulsions compared with the conventional pure soy based LE in preterm infants.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 256 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Unknown 253 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 50 20%
Researcher 27 11%
Student > Bachelor 26 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 9%
Other 20 8%
Other 55 21%
Unknown 54 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 102 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 14%
Social Sciences 10 4%
Psychology 10 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 4%
Other 25 10%
Unknown 64 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 29 April 2020.
All research outputs
of 17,585,248 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 374,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,585,248 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,717 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 374,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 220 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.