ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Practice of Routine Monitoring of Gastric Residual in Preterm Infants: A Meta-Analysis Article.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundControversy exists about the usefulness of gastric residual (GR) evaluation in preterm infants, and different results have been obtained in studies addressing this practice. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the practice of routine monitoring of GR compared to avoiding routine aspiration or alternative interventions.
methodsAn online database search was conducted for relevant randomized trials from 2017 to 2023. The efficacy of the intervention was assessed from the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and the time taken for full enteral feeds. The safety was assessed from the duration of hospitalization, incidence of late-onset sepsis, and days of total parenteral nutrition.
resultsOnly six studies were deemed eligible, fit the inclusion criteria, and were included in the quantitative synthesis. There was no significant difference between the groups in the incidence of NEC, with a mean difference of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.52, 1.75), while the intervention practice showed the early achievement of full enteral feeds (-2.21; 95% CI: -2.58, -1.84), a shorter duration of hospitalization (-0.65; 95% CI: -1.33, 0.02), a lower incidence of late-onset sepsis (0.70; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.09), and less days of total parenteral nutrition -1.65 (95% CI: -1.90, -1.40).
conclusionsFor preterm infants with no signs of feeling intolerance, the results from this study stress the omission of the practice of routine gastric residual aspiration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.