4.7 Review

A systematic review of the factors influencing microbial colonization of the preterm infant gut

期刊

GUT MICROBES
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 1-33

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/19490976.2021.1884514

关键词

Preterm infant; gut microbiota; gut colonization; mode of delivery; antibiotics; human milk; dysbiosis

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia
  2. Jonathan Baldwin Turner fellowship from the College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois
  3. Carle-Illinois seed grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Factors such as postnatal age, mode of delivery, antibiotic use, and human milk consumption have been found to have an impact on the gut microbiota of preterm infants. Limited evidence exists for associations with race, sex, use of different fortifiers, macronutrients, and other medications. Further studies with rich metadata are needed to explore the impact of the preterm exposome on microbiota development in this high-risk population.
Prematurity coupled with the necessary clinical management of preterm (PT) infants introduces multiple factors that can interfere with microbial colonization. This study aimed to review the perinatal, physiological, pharmacological, dietary, and environmental factors associated with gut microbiota of PT infants. A total of 587 articles were retrieved from a search of multiple databases. Sixty studies were included in the review after removing duplicates and articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Review of this literature revealed that evidence converged on the effect of postnatal age, mode of delivery, use of antibiotics, and consumption of human milk in the composition of gut microbiota of PT infants. Less evidence was found for associations with race, sex, use of different fortifiers, macronutrients, and other medications. Future studies with rich metadata are needed to further explore the impact of the PT exposome on the development of the microbiota in this high-risk population.

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