Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2020 Apr;24(18):1–94. doi: 10.3310/hta24180

Two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the SIFT RCT.

Jon Dorling, Oliver Hewer, Madeleine Hurd, Vasha Bari, Beth Bosiak, Ursula Bowler, Andrew King, Louise Linsell, David Murray, Omar Omar, Christopher Partlett, Catherine Rounding, John Townend, Jane Abbott, Janet Berrington, Elaine Boyle, Nicholas Embleton, Samantha Johnson, Alison Leaf, Kenny McCormick, William McGuire, Mehali Patel, Tracy Roberts, Ben Stenson, Warda Tahir, Mark Monahan, Judy Richards, Judith Rankin, Edmund Juszczak
PMCID: PMC7212304  PMID: 32342857

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Observational data suggest that slowly advancing enteral feeds in preterm infants may reduce necrotising enterocolitis but increase late-onset sepsis. The Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT) compared two rates of feed advancement.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if faster (30 ml/kg/day) or slower (18 ml/kg/day) daily feed increments improve survival without moderate or severe disability and other morbidities in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants.

DESIGN

This was a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Randomisation was via a web-hosted minimisation algorithm. It was not possible to safely and completely blind caregivers and parents.

SETTING

The setting was 55 UK neonatal units, from May 2013 to June 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were infants born at < 32 weeks' gestation or a weight of < 1500 g, who were receiving < 30 ml/kg/day of milk at trial enrolment.

INTERVENTIONS

When clinicians were ready to start advancing feed volumes, the infant was randomised to receive daily feed increments of either 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In total, 1400 infants were allocated to fast feeds and 1404 infants were allocated to slow feeds.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months of age, corrected for gestational age. The secondary outcomes were mortality; moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months corrected for gestational age; death before discharge home; microbiologically confirmed or clinically suspected late-onset sepsis; necrotising enterocolitis (Bell's stage 2 or 3); time taken to reach full milk feeds (tolerating 150 ml/kg/day for 3 consecutive days); growth from birth to discharge; duration of parenteral feeding; time in intensive care; duration of hospital stay; diagnosis of cerebral palsy by a doctor or other health professional; and individual components of the definition of moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability.

RESULTS

The results showed that survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months occurred in 802 out of 1224 (65.5%) infants allocated to faster increments and 848 out of 1246 (68.1%) infants allocated to slower increments (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.01). There was no significant difference between groups in the risk of the individual components of the primary outcome or in the important hospital outcomes: late-onset sepsis (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.07) or necrotising enterocolitis (adjusted risk ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.16). Cost-consequence analysis showed that the faster feed increment rate was less costly but also less effective than the slower rate in terms of achieving the primary outcome, so was therefore found to not be cost-effective. Four unexpected serious adverse events were reported, two in each group. None was assessed as being causally related to the intervention.

LIMITATIONS

The study could not be blinded, so care may have been affected by knowledge of allocation. Although well powered for comparisons of all infants, subgroup comparisons were underpowered.

CONCLUSIONS

No clear advantage was identified for the important outcomes in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants when milk feeds were advanced in daily volume increments of 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In terms of future work, the interaction of different milk types with increments merits further examination, as may different increments in infants at the extremes of gestation or birthweight.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76463425.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

Some infants who are born early need to be fed through a tube into their stomach. A small volume of milk is given to begin with, which is gradually increased. To determine whether infants do better if they are fed faster or slower, this study compared increasing the milk feeds by 30 ml/kg/day with increasing the milk feeds by 18 ml/kg/day, aiming to get to full feeds (when other fluids are not needed) in 5 or 9 days. We compared results from the two groups at discharge from hospital and at 24 months of age, after correcting for prematurity. We also assessed the economic impact of the two daily feed increments, interviewed parents about taking part in multiple studies and tested methods for improving questionnaire returns. The faster-fed group reached full milk feeds sooner and needed less intravenous nutrition, and the proportion of infants developing bowel inflammation or bloodstream infection were similar. At 24 months of age, we found an unexpected increase in the risk of moderate or severe motor impairment in the faster-fed group, which is difficult to explain. We also saw that other types of disability were more frequent in the faster group, although this was not significantly different mathematically. This means that no clear advantage of increasing feeds at faster or slower rates was identified and health professionals will need to carefully consider how to increase feeds. After accepting the increased risk of disability, an economic evaluation showed that increasing milk feed volumes at a faster rate was not a cost-effective strategy. Interviews with parents showed that they valued opportunities for their infant to take part in studies, but this interaction is complex and difficult to remember at a stressful and confusing time and made worse by considering multiple studies. More questionnaires were returned when vouchers were given before rather than after receiving them.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Abbott J, Berrington J, Bowler U, Boyle E, Dorling J, Embleton N, et al. The Speed of Increasing milk Feeds: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Pediatr 2017;17:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-017-0794-z doi: 10.1186/s12887-017-0794-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP). CMACE Report – Perinatal Mortality 2009. HQIP. 2014. URL: www.hqip.org.uk/resource/cmace-and-cemach-reports/ (accessed 16 January 2019).
  3. Field DJ, Dorling JS, Manktelow BN, Draper ES. Survival of extremely premature babies in a geographically defined population: prospective cohort study of 1994–9 compared with 2000–5. BMJ 2008;336:1221–3. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39555.670718.BE doi: 10.1136/bmj.39555.670718.BE. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  4. Hack M, Costello DW. Trends in the rates of cerebral palsy associated with neonatal intensive care of preterm children. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2008;51:763–74. https://doi.org/10.1097/GRF.0b013e3181870922 doi: 10.1097/GRF.0b013e3181870922. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Berrington JE, Hearn RI, Bythell M, Wright C, Embleton ND. Deaths in preterm infants: changing pathology over 2 decades. J Pediatr 2012;160:49–53.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.06.046 doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2011.06.046. [DOI] [PubMed]
  6. Rees CM, Pierro A, Eaton S. Neurodevelopmental outcomes of neonates with medically and surgically treated necrotizing enterocolitis. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2007;92:F193–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2006.099929 doi: 10.1136/adc.2006.099929. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  7. Mangham LJ, Petrou S, Doyle LW, Draper ES, Marlow N. The cost of preterm birth throughout childhood in England and Wales. Pediatrics 2009;123:e312–27. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-1827 doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-1827. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Schlapbach LJ, Aebischer M, Adams M, Natalucci G, Bonhoeffer J, Latzin P, et al. Impact of sepsis on neurodevelopmental outcome in a Swiss national cohort of extremely premature infants. Pediatrics 2011;128:e348–57. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-3338 doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-3338. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Shah DK, Doyle LW, Anderson PJ, Bear M, Daley AJ, Hunt RW, Inder TE. Adverse neurodevelopment in preterm infants with postnatal sepsis or necrotizing enterocolitis is mediated by white matter abnormalities on magnetic resonance imaging at term. J Pediatr 2008;153:170–5, 175.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.02.033 doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.02.033. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Laptook AR, O’Shea TM, Shankaran S, Bhaskar B, NICHD Neonatal Network. Adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes among extremely low birth weight infants with a normal head ultrasound: prevalence and antecedents. Pediatrics 2005;115:673–80. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-0667 doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-0667. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Murphy DJ, Hope PL, Johnson A. Neonatal risk factors for cerebral palsy in very preterm babies: case-control study. BMJ 1997;314:404–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7078.404 doi: 10.1136/bmj.314.7078.404. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  12. Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Adams-Chapman I, Fanaroff AA, Hintz SR, Vohr B, Higgins RD, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Neurodevelopmental and growth impairment among extremely low-birth-weight infants with neonatal infection. JAMA 2004;292:2357–65. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.292.19.2357 doi: 10.1001/jama.292.19.2357. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Dobson B, Middleton S. Paying to Care: the Cost of Childhood Disability. 1998. URL: www.jrf.org.uk/report/paying-care-cost-childhood-disability
  14. Morgan J, Young L, McGuire W. Slow advancement of enteral feed volumes to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;10:CD001241. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001241.pub6 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001241.pub6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Hsu JF, Tsai MH, Huang HR, Lien R, Chu SM, Huang CB. Risk factors of catheter-related bloodstream infection with percutaneously inserted central venous catheters in very low birth weight infants: a center’s experience in Taiwan. Pediatr Neonatol 2010;51:336–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1875-9572(10)60065-4 doi: 10.1016/S1875-9572(10)60065-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Kelly DA. Preventing parenteral nutrition liver disease. Early Hum Dev 2010;86:683–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2010.08.012 doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2010.08.012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Nadroo AM, Lin J, Green RS, Magid MS, Holzman IR. Death as a complication of peripherally inserted central catheters in neonates. J Pediatr 2001;138:599–601. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpd.2001.111823 doi: 10.1067/mpd.2001.111823. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Adams-Chapman I, Stoll BJ. Prevention of nosocomial infections in the neonatal intensive care unit. Curr Opin Pediatr 2002;14:157–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008480-200204000-00003 doi: 10.1097/00008480-200204000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  19. Makhoul IR, Sujov P, Smolkin T, Lusky A, Reichman B. Epidemiological, clinical, and microbiological characteristics of late-onset sepsis among very low birth weight infants in Israel: a national survey. Pediatrics 2002;109:34–9. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.109.1.34 doi: 10.1542/peds.109.1.34. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Nagata E, Brito AS, Matsuo T. Nosocomial infections in a neonatal intensive care unit: incidence and risk factors. Am J Infect Control 2002;30:26–31. https://doi.org/10.1067/mic.2002.119823 doi: 10.1067/mic.2002.119823. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Chathas MK, Paton JB, Fisher DE. Percutaneous central venous catheterization. Three years’ experience in a neonatal intensive care unit. Am J Dis Child 1990;144:1246–50. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.1990.02150350078030 doi: 10.1001/archpedi.1990.02150350078030. [DOI] [PubMed]
  22. Stoll BJ, Hansen N, Fanaroff AA, Wright LL, Carlo WA, Ehrenkranz RA, et al. Late-onset sepsis in very low birth weight neonates: the experience of the NICHD Neonatal Research Network. Pediatrics 2002;110:285–91. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.110.2.285 doi: 10.1542/peds.110.2.285. [DOI] [PubMed]
  23. Moore T, Hennessy EM, Myles J, Johnson SJ, Draper ES, Costeloe KL, Marlow N. Neurological and developmental outcome in extremely preterm children born in England in 1995 and 2006: the EPICure studies. BMJ 2012;345:e7961. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e7961 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7961. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  24. Caple J, Armentrout D, Huseby V, Halbardier B, Garcia J, Sparks JW, Moya FR. Randomized, controlled trial of slow versus rapid feeding volume advancement in preterm infants. Pediatrics 2004;114:1597–600. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-1232 doi: 10.1542/peds.2004-1232. [DOI] [PubMed]
  25. Karagol BS, Zenciroglu A, Okumus N, Polin RA. Randomized controlled trial of slow vs rapid enteral feeding advancements on the clinical outcomes of preterm infants with birth weight 750–1250 g. J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2012;37:223–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0148607112449482 doi: 10.1177/0148607112449482. [DOI] [PubMed]
  26. Krishnamurthy S, Gupta P, Debnath S, Gomber S. Slow versus rapid enteral feeding advancement in preterm newborn infants 1000-1499 g: a randomized controlled trial. Acta Paediatr 2010;99:42–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2009.01519.x doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2009.01519.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. Modi M, Ranji S, Jain A, Sharma P, Gupta N. A Randomised Trial of Aggressive Feeding Regimen in Infants with Birthweight ≤ 1250 grams. Proceedings of the Pediatric Academic Societies Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA, USA, 25–28 April 2015.
  28. Raban S, Santhakumaran S, Keeran Q, Joolay Y, Uthaya S, Horn A. A Randomised Controlled Trial of High or Low Volume Initiation and Rapid or Slow Advancement of Milk Feeds for Infants ≤ 1000 g. Proceedings of the South African Paediatric Association Congress, Cape Town, 10–14 September 2014.
  29. Jain S, Mukhopadhyay K, Jain V, Kumar P. Slow versus rapid enteral feed in preterm neonates with antenatal absent end diastolic flow. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016;29:2828–33. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2015.1105954 doi: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1105954. [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. Raban S, Santhakumaran S, Keraan Q, Joolay Y, Uthaya S, Horn A, et al. A randomised controlled trial of high vs low volume initiation and rapid vs slow advancement of milk feeds in infants with birthweights ≤ 1000 g in a resource-limited setting. Paediatr Int Child Health 2016;36:288–95. https://doi.org/10.1179/2046905515Y.0000000056 doi: 10.1179/2046905515Y.0000000056. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Rayyis SF, Ambalavanan N, Wright L, Carlo WA. Randomized trial of ‘slow’ versus ‘fast’ feed advancements on the incidence of necrotizing enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. J Pediatr 1999;134:293–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3476(99)70452-X doi: 10.1016/S0022-3476(99)70452-X. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. Salhotra A, Ramji S. Slow versus fast enteral feed advancement in very low birth weight infants: a randomized control trial. Indian Pediatr 2004;41:435–41. [PubMed]
  33. Dorling J, Abbott J, Berrington J, Bowler U, Boyle E, Embleton N, et al. Protocol For The Speed of Increasing Milk Feed Trial (SIFT). URL: www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/sift/protocols (accessed 23 December 2016).
  34. The ELFIN Trial Investigators Group. Summary protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of Enteral Lactoferrin Supplementation in Newborn Very Preterm Infants (ELFIN). Neonatology 2018;114:142–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000488927 doi: 10.1159/000488927. [DOI] [PubMed]
  35. Allmark P, Spedding M. Clinical trials in neonates: ethical issues. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med 2007;12:318–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.siny.2007.01.023 doi: 10.1016/j.siny.2007.01.023. [DOI] [PubMed]
  36. Johnson S, Wolke D, Marlow N, Preterm Infant Parenting Study Group. Developmental assessment of preterm infants at 2 years: validity of parent reports. Dev Med Child Neurol 2008;50:58–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.02010.x doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2007.02010.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  37. Johnson S, Marlow N, Wolke D, Davidson L, Marston L, O’Hare A, et al. Validation of a parent report measure of cognitive development in very preterm infants. Dev Med Child Neurol 2004;46:389–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0012162204000635 doi: 10.1017/s0012162204000635. [DOI] [PubMed]
  38. British Association of Perinatal Medicine. Report of a BAPM/RCPCH Working Group. Classification of Health Status at 2 Years as a Perinatal Outcome. 2008. URL: www.networks.nhs.uk/nhs-networks/staffordshire-shropshire-and-black-country-newborn/documents/2_year_Outcome_BAPM_WG_report_v6_Jan08.pdf (accessed 29 January 2020).
  39. The ELFIN Trial Investigators Group. Enteral lactoferrin supplementation for very preterm infants: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2019;393:423–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32221-9 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32221-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  40. Kamoji VM, Dorling JS, Manktelow B, Draper ES, Field DJ. Antenatal umbilical Doppler abnormalities: an independent risk factor for early onset neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis in premature infants. Acta Paediatr 2008;97:327–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.00671.x doi: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.00671.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  41. Neu J, Walker WA. Necrotizing enterocolitis. N Engl J Med 2011;364:255–64. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1005408 doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1005408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  42. Holman RC, Stoll BJ, Curns AT, Yorita KL, Steiner CA, Schonberger LB. Necrotising enterocolitis hospitalisations among neonates in the United States. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2006;20:498–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3016.2006.00756.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2006.00756.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  43. Vermont Oxford Network. Vermont Oxford Network Database. Data for 31 Neonatal Units in the United Kingdom. 2011. URL: https://public.vtoxford.org/manuals-forms/members-area/ (accessed 29 September 2011).
  44. Johnson S, Evans TA, Draper ES, Field DJ, Manktelow BN, Marlow N, et al. Neurodevelopmental outcomes following late and moderate prematurity: a population-based cohort study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2015;100:F301–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-307684 doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2014-307684. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  45. Dorling J, Abbott J, Berrington J, Bosiak B, Bowler U, Boyle E, et al. Controlled trial of two incremental milk-feeding rates in preterm infants. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1434–43. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1816654 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816654. [DOI] [PubMed]
  46. Freeman JV, Cole TJ, Chinn S, Jones PR, White EM, Preece MA. Cross sectional stature and weight reference curves for the UK, 1990. Arch Dis Child 1995;73:17–24. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.73.1.17 doi: 10.1136/adc.73.1.17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  47. Tahir W, Monahan M, Dorling J, Hewer O, Bowler U, Linsell L, et al. Economic evaluation alongside the Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT) [published online ahead of print April 2 2020]. Arch Dis Child 2020. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2019-318346 doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2019-318346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  48. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2013. [PubMed]
  49. Department of Health and Social Care. NHS Reference Costs 2017/18. URL: https://improvement.nhs.uk/resources/reference-costs/ (accessed 17 January 2019).
  50. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2017. Canterbury: PSSRU, University of Kent; 2017. URL: www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/unit-costs-2017/ (accessed 17 January 2019).
  51. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. 72nd edn. London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press; 2016.
  52. Ganapathy V, Hay JW, Kim JH. Costs of necrotizing enterocolitis and cost-effectiveness of exclusively human milk-based products in feeding extremely premature infants. Breastfeed Med 2012;7:29–37. https://doi.org/10.1089/bfm.2011.0002 doi: 10.1089/bfm.2011.0002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  53. Renfrew MJ, Craig D, Dyson L, McCormick F, Rice S, King SE, et al. Breastfeeding promotion for infants in neonatal units: a systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess 2009;13(40). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta13400 doi: 10.3310/hta13400. [DOI] [PubMed]
  54. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2018. Canterbury: PSSRU, University of Kent; 2018.
  55. Walter E, Liu FX, Maton P, Storme T, Perrinet M, von Delft O, et al. Cost analysis of neonatal and pediatric parenteral nutrition in Europe: a multi-country study. Eur J Clin Nutr 2012;66:639–44. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2011.225 doi: 10.1038/ejcn.2011.225. [DOI] [PubMed]
  56. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). BNF for Children. London: NICE; 2019. URL: https://bnfc.nice.org.uk/ (accessed 17 January 2019).
  57. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
  58. Campbell MK, Torgerson DJ. Bootstrapping: estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios. QJM 1999;92:177–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/92.3.177 doi: 10.1093/qjmed/92.3.177. [DOI] [PubMed]
  59. Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham AR, Alleyne G, Claeson M, Evans DB, et al. Priorities in Health. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank; 2006. [PubMed]
  60. Brown M, Bennett P. Clinical Pharmacology – 11th Edition. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2012.
  61. Fenwick E, Byford S. A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Br J Psychiatry 2005;187:106–8. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.187.2.106 doi: 10.1192/bjp.187.2.106. [DOI] [PubMed]
  62. Faria R, Gomes M, Epstein D, White IR. A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials. PharmacoEconomics 2014;32:1157–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3 (accessed 9 January 2020). doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  63. Petrou S, Henderson J, Bracewell M, Hockley C, Wolke D, Marlow N, EPICure Study Group. Pushing the boundaries of viability: the economic impact of extreme preterm birth. Early Hum Dev 2006;82:77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2006.01.002 doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2006.01.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  64. Chapko MK, Liu CF, Perkins M, Li YF, Fortney JC, Maciejewski ML. Equivalence of two healthcare costing methods: bottom-up and top-down. Health Econ 2009;18:1188–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1422 doi: 10.1002/hec.1422. [DOI] [PubMed]
  65. Morgan J, Young L, McGuire W. Delayed introduction of progressive enteral feeds to prevent necrotising enterocolitis in very low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;3:CD001970. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001970.pub3 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001970.pub3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  66. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ 2013;346:f1049. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1049 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1049. [DOI] [PubMed]
  67. Whitehurst DG, Bryan S. Trial-based clinical and economic analyses: the unhelpful quest for conformity. Trials 2013;14:421. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-14-421 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-421. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  68. Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999;18:341–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6296(98)00039-3 doi: 10.1016/S0167-6296(98)00039-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  69. Bayarri MJ, Berger JO. The interplay of Bayesian and frequentist analysis. Stat Sci 2004;19:58–80. https://doi.org/10.1214/088342304000000116 doi: 10.1214/088342304000000116. [DOI]
  70. Wilman E, Megone C, Oliver S, Duley L, Gyte G, Wright JM. The ethical issues regarding consent to clinical trials with pre-term or sick neonates: a systematic review (framework synthesis) of the empirical research. Trials 2015;16:502. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0957-x doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0957-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  71. Zupancic JA, Gillie P, Streiner DL, Watts JL, Schmidt B. Determinants of parental authorization for involvement of newborn infants in clinical trials. Pediatrics 1997;99:E6. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.99.1.e6 doi: 10.1542/peds.99.1.e6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  72. Burgess E, Singhal N, Amin H, McMillan DD, Devrome H. Consent for clinical research in the neonatal intensive care unit: a retrospective survey and a prospective study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2003;88:280–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/fn.88.4.F280 doi: 10.1136/fn.88.4.F280. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  73. Snowdon C, Garcia J, Elbourne D. Making sense of randomization; responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial. Soc Sci Med 1997;45:1337–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00063-4 doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00063-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  74. Mason S. Obtaining informed consent for neonatal randomised controlled trials — an ‘elaborate ritual’? Arch Dis Child 1997;76:143–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/fn.76.3.F143 doi: 10.1136/fn.76.3.F143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  75. Hoehn KS, Wernovsky G, Rychik J, Gaynor JW, Spray TL, Feudtner C Nelson RM. What factors are important to parents making decisions about neonatal research? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2005;90:267–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2004.065078 doi: 10.1136/adc.2004.065078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  76. Tooher RL, Middleton PF, Crowther CA. A thematic analysis of factors influencing recruitment to maternal and perinatal trials. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2008;8:36. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-8-36 doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-8-36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  77. Davis JM, Baer GR, Portman R, Nelson R, Storari L, Aranda JV, et al. Enrolment of neonates in more than one clinical trial. Clin Ther 2017;39:1959–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.09.006 doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.09.006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  78. Randolph AG. The unique challenges of enrolling patients into multiple clinical trials. Crit Care Med 2009;37(Suppl. 1):107–11. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181921c9d doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181921c9d. [DOI] [PubMed]
  79. Embleton ND, Berrington JE, Dorling J, Ewer AK, Juszczak E, Kirby JA, et al. Mechanisms affecting the gut of preterm infants in enteral feeding trials. Front Nutr 2017;4:14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2017.00014 doi: 10.3389/fnut.2017.00014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  80. Embleton ND, Turnbull E, Turner S, Berrington JE. Successful blood salvaging from preterm infants: maximizing opportunities, minimizing interventions. Acta Paediatr 2013;102:e527–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.12373 doi: 10.1111/apa.12373. [DOI] [PubMed]
  81. Brocklehurst P. Randomised controlled trials in perinatal medicine: 2. Recruitment of a pregnant woman or her newborn child into more than one trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997;104:765–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb12016.x doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb12016.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  82. Beardsall K, Brocklehurst P, Ahluwalia J. Should newborn infants be excluded from multiple research studies? Lancet 2008;372:503–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61200-3 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61200-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  83. Ward Platt M. Participation in multiple neonatal research studies. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2005;90:F191. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2004.067371 doi: 10.1136/adc.2004.067371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  84. Harron K, Lee T, Ball T, Mok Q, Gamble C, Macrae D, Gilbert R, CATCH team. Making co-enrolment feasible for randomised controlled trials in paediatric intensive care. PLOS ONE 2012;7:e41791. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041791 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041791. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  85. Silverman D. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2001.
  86. Richards J, Graham R, Embleton ND, Campbell C, Rankin J. Mothers’ perspectives on the perinatal loss of a co-twin: a qualitative study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015;15:143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-015-0579-z doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0579-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  87. Stenson BJ, Becher JC, McIntosh N. Neonatal research: the parental perspective. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2004;89:321–4. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2002.021931 doi: 10.1136/adc.2002.021931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  88. Bernardo J, Nowacki A, Martin R, Fanaroff JM, Hibbs AM. Multiples and parents of multiples prefer same arm randomization of siblings in neonatal trials. J Perinatol 2015;35:208–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2014.192 doi: 10.1038/jp.2014.192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  89. Embleton ND, Rankin J. The BRACELET study: implications for the design of randomised controlled trials in neonatal and paediatric intensive care. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2015;100:F97–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-307103 doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2014-307103. [DOI] [PubMed]
  90. Morley CJ, Lau R, Davis PG, Morse C. What do parents think about enrolling their premature babies in several research studies? Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2005;90:225–8. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2004.061986 doi: 10.1136/adc.2004.061986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  91. Harth SC, Thong YH. Parental perceptions and attitudes about informed consent in clinical research involving children. Soc Sci Med 1995;40:1573–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(94)00412-M doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)00412-M. [DOI] [PubMed]
  92. Akl EA, Briel M, You JJ, Sun X, Johnston BC, Busse JW, et al. Potential impact on estimated treatment effects of information lost to follow-up in randomised controlled trials (LOST-IT): systematic review. BMJ 2012;344:e2809. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e2809 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e2809. [DOI] [PubMed]
  93. Brueton VC, Tierney JF, Stenning S, Meredith S, Harding S, Nazareth I, Rait G. Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2014;4:e003821. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003821 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003821. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  94. Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, Diguiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, et al. Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;3:MR000008. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4 doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  95. Khadjesari Z, Murray E, Kalaitzaki E, White IR, McCambridge J, Thompson SG, et al. Impact and costs of incentives to reduce attrition in online trials: two randomized controlled trials. J Med Internet Res 2011;13:e26. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1523 doi: 10.2196/jmir.1523. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  96. Dillman DA. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 2nd edn. Hoboken, NJ. John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2007.
  97. Singer E, Cong Y. The use and effects of incentives in surveys. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 2013;645:112–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212458082 doi: 10.1177/0002716212458082. [DOI]
  98. Hardy P, Bell JL, Brocklehurst P, Epidural and Position Trial Collaborative Group. Evaluation of the effects of an offer of a monetary incentive on the rate of questionnaire return during follow-up of a clinical trial: a randomised study within a trial. BMC Med Res Methodol 2016;16:82. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0180-9 doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0180-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  99. Kenyon S, Pike K, Jones D, Taylor D, Salt A, Marlow N, Brocklehurst P. The effect of a monetary incentive on return of a postal health and development questionnaire: a randomised trial [ISRCTN53994660]. BMC Health Serv Res 2005;5:55. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-5-55 doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-5-55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  100. Bower P, Brueton V, Gamble C, Treweek S, Smith CT, Young B, Williamson P. Interventions to improve recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a survey and workshop to assess current practice and future priorities. Trials 2014;15:399. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-399 doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-399. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  101. Stenson BJ, Tarnow-Mordi WO, Darlow BA, Simes J, Juszczak E, Askie L, et al. Oxygen saturation and outcomes in preterm infants. N Engl J Med 2013;368:2094–104. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1302298 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1302298. [DOI] [PubMed]
  102. Stein HM, Wilmoth J, Burton J. Electrical activity of the diaphragm in a small cohort of term neonates. Respir Care 2012;57:1483–7. https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.01650 doi: 10.4187/respcare.01650. [DOI] [PubMed]
  103. Kooi EMW, Verhagen EA, Elting JWJ, Czosnyka M, Austin T, Wong FY, Aries MJH. Measuring cerebrovascular autoregulation in preterm infants using near-infrared spectroscopy: an overview of the literature. Expert Rev Neurother 2017;17:801–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737175.2017.1346472 doi: 10.1080/14737175.2017.1346472. [DOI] [PubMed]
  104. Martin CR, Cheesman A, Brown J, Makda M, Kutner AJ, DaSilva D, et al. Factors determining optimal fatty acid absorption in preterm infants. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2016;62:130–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0000000000000934 doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000000934. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  105. Østergaard MV, Cilieborg MS, Skovgaard K, Schmidt M, Sangild PT, Bering SB. Preterm birth reduces nutrient absorption with limited effect on immune gene expression and gut colonization in pigs. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2015;61:481–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0000000000000827 doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000000827. [DOI] [PubMed]
  106. Lindquist S, Hernell O. Lipid digestion and absorption in early life: an update. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care 2010;13:314–20. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCO.0b013e328337bbf0 doi: 10.1097/MCO.0b013e328337bbf0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  107. Neu J, Koldovsky O. Nutrient absorption in the preterm neonate. Clin Perinatol 1996;23:229–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0095-5108(18)30240-9 doi: 10.1016/S0095-5108(18)30240-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  108. NICE. Developmental Follow-up of Children and Young People Born Preterm. URL: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG72 (accessed February 2020).
  109. Cuttini M, Ferrante P, Mirante N, Chiandotto V, Fertz M, Dall’Oglio AM, et al. Cognitive assessment of very preterm infants at 2-year corrected age: performance of the Italian version of the PARCA-R parent questionnaire. Early Hum Dev 2012;88:159–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2011.07.022 doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2011.07.022. [DOI] [PubMed]
  110. Blaggan S, Guy A, Boyle EM, Spata E, Manktelow BN, Wolke D, Johnson S. A parent questionnaire for developmental screening in infants born late and moderately preterm. Pediatrics 2014;134:e55–62. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-0266 doi: 10.1542/peds.2014-0266. [DOI] [PubMed]
  111. Tin W, Fritz S, Wariyar U, Hey E. Outcome of very preterm birth: children reviewed with ease at 2 years differ from those followed up with difficulty. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 1998;79:F83–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/fn.79.2.F83 doi: 10.1136/fn.79.2.F83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  112. Wolke D, Söhne B, Ohrt B, Riegel K. Follow-up of preterm children: important to document dropouts. Lancet 1995;345:447. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(95)90425-5 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(95)90425-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  113. Field D, Spata E, Davies T, Manktelow B, Johnson S, Boyle E, Draper ES. Evaluation of the use of a parent questionnaire to provide later health status data: the PANDA study. Arch Dis Child - Fetal Neonatal Ed 2015;101:F304–308. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2015-309247 doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2015-309247. [DOI] [PubMed]
  114. Lynn P, Burton J, Kaminska O, Knies G, Nandi A. An Initial Look at Non-Response and Attrition in Understanding Society. URL: www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/working-papers/2012-02.pdf (accessed 29 January 2020).
  115. Draper ES, Manktelow BN, Cuttini M, Maier RF, Fenton AC, Van Reempts P, et al. Variability in very preterm stillbirth and in-hospital mortality across Europe. Pediatrics 2017;139:e20161990. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1990 doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1990. [DOI] [PubMed]
  116. British Association of Perinatal Medicine. Categories of Care (2011). A BAPM Framework for Practice. URL: www.bapm.org/resources/34-categories-of-care-2011 (accessed 29 January 2020).

RESOURCES