Summary of findings 2. Summary of findings table ‐ Quality and volume of gastric residual compared to quality of gastric residual alone for feed interruption in preterm infants.
| Quality and volume of gastric residual compared to quality of gastric residual alone for feed interruption in preterm infants | ||||||
| Patient or population: feed interruption while monitoring gastric residual Setting: neonatal intensive care unit Intervention: quality + volume of gastric residual Comparison: quality of gastric residual alone | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with quality of gastric residual alone | Risk with quality + volume of gastric residual | |||||
| Risk of necrotising enterocolitis stage ≥ 2 | 0 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | RR 5.35 (0.26 to 108.27) | 87 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa | |
| Time to establish full enteral feeds | The mean time to establish full enteral feeds was 0 | MD 0.1 lower (0.91 lower to 0.71 higher) | ‐ | 87 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa | |
| Time to regain birth weight (days) | The mean time to regain birth weight (days) was 0 | MD 1 higher (0.37 lower to 2.37 higher) | ‐ | 87 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa | |
| Number of infants with feed interruption episodes (lasting ≥ 12 hours) | 0 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | RR 3.21 (0.13 to 76.67) | 87 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ Very lowa,b | |
| Number of total parenteral nutrition days | The mean number of total parenteral nutrition days was 0 | MD 0.8 higher (0.78 lower to 2.38 higher) | ‐ | 87 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa | |
| Risk of invasive Infection | 0 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | RR 5.35 (0.26 to 108.27) | 87 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa | |
| All‐cause mortality before hospital discharge | 0 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | RR 3.21 (0.13 to 76.67) | 87 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa | |
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; RR: risk ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
| See interactive version of this table: https://gdt.gradepro.org/presentations/#/isof/isof_question_revman_web_439094110359236378. | ||||||
a Downgraded by two levels for very serious imprecision due to small sample size not reaching the 'Optimal information size' criteria and confidence interval crossing the line of no difference b Downgraded by one level for serious risk of bias due to 'some concerns' in the only included trial