Silvestre 1996.

Methods	Randomised. Stratified: 750‐999g, 1000‐1249g, and 1250‐1499g. Blindness of randomisation ‐ Yes. Blindness of intervention ‐ No. Complete follow‐up ‐ Partial (only for stratified group). Blinding of outcome measurement ‐ Yes.
Participants	93 infants randomised. 11 post randomisation exclusions. 82 infants analysed (all 93 infants included in analysis of stratified groups). Inclusion: Infants AGA with birth weight 750‐1500 grams, born between 27‐34 weeks gestation, had no major congenital malformations and stable to start feeds on day 2 or 3 of life.
Interventions	Continuous feeds administered over 3 hours, every 3 hours. Intermittent bolus feeds every 3 hours over 15‐30 minutes. Feeding protocol for infants. Criteria to define feeding intolerance predetermined (gastric residual volume >= 2 hr feed for continuous or >= 2mL bolus feeds). Feeds: water, initially diluted preterm infant formula. Timing of Feeds: Protocol was day 2‐3. Actual was not stated.
Outcomes	Primary: rate of weight gain. (*growth data was converted to grams/week). Secondary: days to full feeds, days to regain birth weight, days to discharge, length gain, and head circumference gain.
Notes	Clarification of data for head circumference requested (data printed in the article appears to be significant but was reported as insignificant ‐ ? typographical error in data). Data on complete study sample not "intent‐to‐treat". Intent‐to‐treat analysis by weight groups. Sample size calculation based on >/= 10% increase rate of weight gain in continuous group. Full feeds not defined. 11 exclusions: 3 in Continuous group (1 protocol violation), 8 in Bolus group (3 feeding intolerance, 2 protocol violations). Unbalanced numbers between groups. ?criteria for discharge. Initial feed of water given for different duration (2 hours in continuous group vs 6 hours in bolus group). Nipple feeding 34 wks or 1500 grams.
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Infants were randomly assigned to either continuous or intermittent feedings.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	In this study, investigators were not unaware of the feeding group assignment.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Outcome assessors were blinded.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Reported complete follow‐up only for stratified groups. In this study, 11 infants were removed from treatment protocols and excluded from overall analyses. Of three infants excluded from the continuous group, none were excluded for feeding intolerance, although one was excluded for protocol violation. Of eight infants excluded from the intermittent group, three were excluded for feeding intolerance and another two for protocol violation. Follow‐up was incomplete in the remaining three studies.