4.7 Article

Updated Meta-analysis of Probiotics for Preventing Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Preterm Neonates

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 125, 期 5, 页码 921-930

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2009-1301

关键词

neonates; necrotizing enterocolitis; preterm; probiotics; systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews of randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) indicate lower mortality and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and shorter time to full feeds after probiotic supplementation in preterm (< 34 weeks' gestation) very low birth weight (VLBW; birth weight < 1500 g) neonates. The objective of this study was to update our 2007 systematic review of RCTs of probiotic supplementation for preventing NEC in preterm VLBW neonates. METHODS: We searched in March 2009 the Cochrane Central register; Medline, Embase, and Cinahl databases; and proceedings of the Pediatric Academic Society meetings and gastroenterology conferences. Cochrane Neonatal Review Group search strategy was followed. Selection criteria were RCTs of any enteral probiotic supplementation that started within first 10 days and continued for >= 7 days in preterm VLBW neonates and reported on stage 2 NEC or higher (Modified Bell Staging). RESULTS: A total of 11 (N = 2176), including 4 new (n = 783), trials were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis by using a fixed-effects model. The risk for NEC and death was significantly lower. Risk for sepsis did not differ significantly. No significant adverse effects were reported. Trial sequential analysis) showed 30% reduction in the incidence of NEC (alpha =.05 and.01; power: 80%). CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm the significant benefits of probiotic supplements in reducing death and disease in preterm neonates. The dramatic effect sizes, tight confidence intervals, extremely low P values, and overall evidence indicate that additional placebo-controlled trials are unnecessary if a suitable probiotic product is available. Pediatrics 2010;125:921-930

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据