Search

Introduction: The underdevelopment of preterm infants can lead to delayed progression through key early milestones. Demonstration of safe oral feeding skills, constituting proper suck-swallow reflex are requirements for discharge from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) to ensure adequate nutrition acquisition. Helping an infant develop these skills can be draining and emotional for both families and healthcare staff involved in the care of preterm infants with feeding difficulties. Currently, there are no systematic reviews evaluating both family and healthcare team perspectives on aspects of oral feeding. Thus, we first aim to evaluate the current knowledge surrounding the perceptions, experiences and needs of families with preterm babies in the context of oral feeding in the NICU. Second, we aim to evaluate the current knowledge surrounding the perceptions, experiences and needs of healthcare providers (physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, dietitians, speech-language pathologists and occupational therapists) in the context of oral feeding in the NICU., Methods and Analysis: A literature search will be conducted in multiple electronic databases from their inception, including PubMed, CINHAL, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials and PsycINFO. No restrictions will be applied based on language or data of publication. Two authors will screen the titles and abstracts and then review the full text for the studies' inclusion in the review. The data will be extracted into a pilot-tested data collection sheet by three independent authors. To evaluate the quality, reliability and relevance of the included studies, the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist will be used. The overall evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. We will report the results of the systematic review by following the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the synthesis of Qualitative research checklist., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval of this project is not required as this is a systematic review using published and publicly available data and will not involve contact with human subjects. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42023479288., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Gastrointestinal hospitalisations in the USA cause over US$130 billion in expenditures, and acute pancreatitis is a leading cause of these hospitalisations. Adequate pain control is one of the primary treatment goals for acute pancreatitis. Though opioids are commonly used for analgesia in these patients, there have been concerns about short-term and long-term side effects of using opioids. Recently, non-opioid medications have been studied to treat pain in patients with acute pancreatitis. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to assess the comparative efficacy of analgesic medication for non-severe, acute pancreatitis., Methods and Analysis: We will search multiple electronic databases for randomised controlled trials that study pain management in patients with non-severe, acute pancreatitis. The intervention will be any analgesic for acute pancreatitis in the hospital setting. The comparison group will be patients who received a placebo or other active interventions for pain management. The primary outcomes of interest include pain scores and the need for supplementary analgesia. The secondary outcomes will be serious adverse events, local complications, progression to severe pancreatitis, transfer to the intensive care unit, length of hospitalisation, time to start enteral feeds, 30-day all-cause mortality and Quality of Life Scale scores. If sufficient homogeneity exists among included studies, the findings will be pooled using a traditional pairwise and network meta-analysis. The risk of bias in randomised control trials will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach will be used to report the certainty of evidence., Ethics and Dissemination: This systematic review will not involve direct contact with human subjects. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. They will give healthcare providers a better awareness of the optimal analgesic medication for pain treatment in non-severe, acute pancreatitis., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: This systematic review commissioned by WHO aimed to synthesise evidence from current literature on the effects of systematically given, routine use of antibiotics for infants under 6 months of age with growth failure/faltering., Settings: Low-income and middle-income countries., Participants: The study population was infants less than 6 months of age with growth failure/faltering., Intervention: The intervention group was infants who received no antibiotics or antibiotics other than those recommended in 2013 guidelines by WHO to treat childhood severe acute malnutrition. The comparison group was infants who received antibiotics according to the aforementioned guidelines., Primary and Secondary Outcomes: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes: clinical deterioration, antimicrobial resistance, recovery from comorbidity, adverse events, markers of intestinal inflammation, markers of systemic inflammation, hospital-acquired infections and non-response. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was considered to report the overall evidence quality for an outcome., Results: We screened 5137 titles and abstracts and reviewed the full text of 157 studies. None of the studies from the literature search qualified to answer the question for this systematic review., Conclusions: There is a paucity of evidence on the routine use of antibiotics for the treatment of malnutrition in infants less than 6 months of age. Future studies with adequate sample sizes are needed to assess the potential risks and benefits of antibiotics in malnourished infants under 6 months of age., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021277073., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© World Health Organization 2023. Licensee BMJ.)

Introduction: Antibiotics have been used as an adjunct in treating children with severe acute malnutrition 6-59 months of age; however, the data for infants less than 6 months are scarce. The WHO recently started guideline development for preventing and treating wasting, including growth failure/faltering in infants less than 6 months. This systematic review commissioned by WHO aims to synthesise evidence from current literature on the effectiveness of antibiotics for infants less than 6 months of age with growth failure/faltering., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis for studies that assessed the effect of antibiotics in the treatment of infants with growth faltering. We will search multiple electronic databases. We will include randomised control trials and non-randomised studies with a control arm. The study population is infants less than 6 months of age with growth failure. The intervention group will be infants who received no antibiotics or antibiotics other than recommended in 2013 guidelines by WHO to treat severe acute malnutrition in children. The comparison group will be infants who received antibiotics according to the 2013 guideline by WHO. We will consider the following outcomes: mortality, clinical deterioration, antimicrobial resistance, recovery from comorbidity, adverse events, markers of intestinal inflammation, markers of systemic inflammation, hospital-acquired infections, non-response. We will use the meta-analysis to pool the studies where applicable. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to reporting the overall evidence quality for an outcome., Ethics and Dissemination: This is a systematic review and will not involve contact with a human subject. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-review journal and will guide the WHO's recommendation for the use of antibiotics in infants less than 6 months of age with growth failure., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42021277073., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The current standard of care for children with severe acute malnutrition (SAM) involves using ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) to promote growth; however, the precise formulation to achieve optimal recovery remains unclear. Emerging research suggests that alternative RUTF formulations may be more effective in correcting SAM-related complications such as anaemia and iron deficiency. This systematic review commissioned by the WHO aims to synthesise the most recent research on the iron content in RUTF and related products in the community-based treatment of uncomplicated severe malnutrition in children aged 6 months and older., Methods and Analysis: We will search multiple electronic databases. We will include randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies with a control arm. The intervention group will be infants who received RUTF treatments other than the current recommended guidelines set forth by the WHO. The comparison group is children receiving RUTF containing iron at the current WHO-recommended level of 1.9 mg/100 kcal (10-14 mg/100 g). The primary outcomes of interest include blood haemoglobin concentration, any anaemia, severe anaemia, iron-deficiency anaemia, recovery from SAM and any adverse outcomes. We will use meta-analysis to pool findings if sufficient homogeneity exists among included studies. The risk of bias in studies will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias-2. We will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation(GRADE) approach to examine the overall certainty of evidence., Ethics and Dissemination: This is a systematic review and will not involve direct contact with human subjects. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will guide the WHO's recommendation on the optimal iron content in RUTFs for the treatment of SAM in children aged 6-59 months., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Dysphagia affects several children in USA and around the globe. Videofluoroscopic Swallow Study (VFSS) and Fiberoptic Endoscopic Evaluation of Swallowing (FEES) are the most objective studies to define swallowing function. The presence of tracheal aspiration during VFSS or FEES in children with dysphagia is associated with an increased risk of aspiration pneumonia. However, the association of laryngeal penetration with aspiration pneumonia remains unclear. This systematic review aims to assess the risk of aspiration pneumonia in children with dysphagia with laryngeal penetration on VFSS/FEES and compare it with children with tracheal aspiration and children with neither tracheal aspiration nor laryngeal penetration., Methods and Analysis: This study will be a systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic electronic searches will be conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINHAL, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, LILACS and WHO Global Index Medicus. We will include studies published through 6 October 2021. Primary outcome will be the incidence of aspiration pneumonia. Secondary outcomes will be incidence of hospitalisation, paediatric intensive care unit admission, enteral tube requirement, growth, symptoms improvement and mortality. The Cochrane Risk of Bias In Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tool will be used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analysis will be used to pool the studies. We will pool dichotomous outcomes to obtain an odd ratio (OR) and report with 95% CI. Continuous outcomes will be pooled to obtain mean difference and reported with 95% CI. Overall grade of evidence will be assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, and findings will be presented in a summary of findings table., Ethics and Dissemination: This study is a systematic review without contact with patients. Therefore, IRB approval is not required. Authors consent to publishing this review. Data will be kept for review by editors and peer reviewers. Data will be available to general public on request., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42020222145., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Prevalence rates of breastfeeding remain low even though the World Health Organization (WHO) and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend exclusive breast feeding for the first 6 months of life in combination with appropriate complementary feeding beyond six 6 months of age. There have been several studies that address the implication of drinking animal milk and/or infant formula on children's health and development when breast feeding is not offered during the first year of life. Vast improvements have been made in infant formula design, which may increase its benefits compared with animal's milk. The objective of this review is therefore to synthesise the most recent evidence on the effects of the consumption of animal milk compared with infant formula in non-breastfed or mixed breastfed infants aged 6-11 months., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed the effect of animal milk compared with formula or mixed-fed (breastmilk and formula) on infants aged 6-11 months. The primary outcomes of interest include anaemia, gastrointestinal blood loss, weight for age, height for age and weight for height. We will include randomised and non-randomised studies with a control group. We will use the Cochrane risk of bias tools to assess the risk of bias. We will use meta-analysis to pool findings if the identified studies are conceptually homogenous and data are available from more than one study. We will assess the overall quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach., Ethics and Dissemination: This is a systematic review, so no patients will be directly involved in the design or development of this study. The findings from this systematic review will be disseminated to relevant patient populations and caregivers and will guide the WHO's recommendations on formula consumption versus animal milk in infants aged 6-11 months., Trial Registration Number: CRD42020210925., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: Zinc deficiency is widespread, and preventive supplementation may have benefits in young children. Effects for children over 5 years of age, and effects when coadministered with other micronutrients are uncertain. These are obstacles to scale-up. This review seeks to determine if preventive supplementation reduces mortality and morbidity for children aged 6 months to 12 years., Design: Systematic review conducted with the Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group. Two reviewers independently assessed studies. Meta-analyses were performed for mortality, illness and side effects., Data Sources: We searched multiple databases, including CENTRAL and MEDLINE in January 2013. Authors were contacted for missing information., Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: Randomised trials of preventive zinc supplementation. Hospitalised children and children with chronic diseases were excluded., Results: 80 randomised trials with 205 401 participants were included. There was a small but non-significant effect on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.95 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.05)). Supplementation may reduce incidence of all-cause diarrhoea (RR 0.87 (0.85 to 0.89)), but there was evidence of reporting bias. There was no evidence of an effect of incidence or prevalence of respiratory infections or malaria. There was moderate quality evidence of a very small effect on linear growth (standardised mean difference 0.09 (0.06 to 0.13)) and an increase in vomiting (RR 1.29 (1.14 to 1.46)). There was no evidence of an effect on iron status. Comparing zinc with and without iron cosupplementation and direct comparisons of zinc plus iron versus zinc administered alone favoured cointervention for some outcomes and zinc alone for other outcomes. Effects may be larger for children over 1 year of age, but most differences were not significant., Conclusions: Benefits of preventive zinc supplementation may outweigh any potentially adverse effects in areas where risk of zinc deficiency is high. Further research should determine optimal intervention characteristics and delivery strategies., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)