Call for Editor-in-Chief 

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is seeking applications for the Editor-in-Chief of a new journal from the Academy with the working title of “Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Global Reports” (“JAND: Global Reports”), set to launch in early 2025. This is a contract position with the Academy containing an annual honorarium and an initial term of 5 years, with renewal opportunities for subsequent terms. Learn more …

VLBW: Formula Enrichment (2020)

Author and Year:
Brunton J, Saigal S, Atkinson S, 1998
PubMed ID:
Article Title:
Growth and body composition in infants with bronchopulmonary dysplasia up to 3 months corrected age: a randomized trial of a high-energy nutrient-enriched formula fed after hospital discharge.
Authors:
Brunton J, Saigal S, Atkinson S
Journal:
The Journal of Pediatrics
Year of publication:
1998
Volume:
133
Issue:
3
Page numbers:
340-5
Study Design:
Randomized Controlled Trial
Risk of Bias Assessment Rating:
Neutral
Inclusion Criteria:
Eligible infants weighed <1500 g at birth and were appropriate for gestational age, had bronchopulmonary dysplasia, were formula fed by parental choice, had no major congenital anomalies, and had not undergone gastrointestinal surgery.
Exclusion Criteria:
Not reported.
Research Purpose:
We conducted a randomized, blinded, intervention trial in infants with BPD to evaluate 2 different infant formulas: (1) with a composition based on the current feeding practice of high energy added to a standard term infant formula or (2) a formula with a high protein to energy ratio and a greater concentration of minerals. Our primary goal was to assess the effect of the formulas on the rate of growth and composition of growth (lean, fat, and bone mineral accretion) when groups were compared at 3 months corrected age. Our secondary goal was to determine whether nutrient malabsorption or inadequate nutrient intake contributed to long-term growth failure pre- viously observed in infants with BPD.
Blinding efforts:
After 37 weeks postmenstrual age, infants were randomized in a double-blind design to an enriched high-energy (3760 kJ/L [900 kcal/L]), high-protein, high-mineral formula (EF) or a standard isoenergetic (3760 kJ/L [900 kcal/L]) formula (SF).
Study Location:
Ontario, Canada
Source(s) of Funding:
Government, Industry
Please specify names of funders:
Ontario Ministry of Health and formula manufactured to investigators’ specifications and donated by Wyeth-Ayerst Int., Radnor, Pennsylvania.
Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
  1. Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies) Yes
  2. Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about? Yes
  3. Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice? Yes
  4. Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies) Yes
 
Validity Questions
1. Was the research question clearly stated? Yes
  1.1. Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified? Yes
  1.2. Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated? Yes
  1.3. Were the target population and setting specified? Yes
2. Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias? Yes
  2.1. Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study? Yes
  2.2. Were criteria applied equally to all study groups? Yes
  2.3. Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described? No
  2.4. Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population? ???
3. Were study groups comparable? Yes
  3.1. Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT) No
  3.2. Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline? Yes
  3.3. Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.) Yes
4. Was method of handling withdrawals described? No
  4.1. Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups? ???
  4.2. Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.) No
  4.3. Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for? ???
  4.4. Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups? ???
5. Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias? No
  5.1. In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate? No
  5.2. Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.) No
6. Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described? No
  6.1. In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied? Yes
  6.3. Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect? ???
  6.4. Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured? Yes
  6.5. Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described? No
  6.6. Were extra or unplanned treatments described? No
  6.7. Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups? ???
7. Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable? Yes
  7.1. Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question? Yes
  7.2. Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern? Yes
  7.3. Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur? ???
  7.4. Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures? Yes
  7.5. Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision? Yes
  7.6. Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes? Yes
  7.7. Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups? Yes
8. Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators? Yes
  8.1. Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately? No
  8.2. Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated? Yes
  8.3. Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals? Yes
  8.4. Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)? No
  8.5. Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)? ???
  8.6. Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported? Yes
  8.7. If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error? No
9. Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration? No
  9.1. Is there a discussion of findings? Yes
  9.2. Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed? No
10. Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely? ???
  10.1. Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described? Yes
  10.2. Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest? No