Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Clinical risks and advantages of both continuous feeding and intermittent feeding for preterm infants have been presented in previous studies. To determine the most appropriate feeding method for low-birth-weight infants, a meta-analysis was conducted. SUBJECTS/METHODS: Articles related to this topic were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library electronic database from the onset to May 2019. Heterogeneity analysis was performed with Chi-square and I(2) test. Pooled analysis was based on fixed effects model, if heterogeneity between the eligible studies was negligible (I(2) < 50%, P > 0.05). In contrast, a random effects model was carried out. The quality of including studies were evaluated by Cochrane assessment tool. RESULTS: A total of 1030 articles identified. Altogether, eight articles including 707 infants were included in final analysis based on eligibility criteria. In continuous feeding infants, time to achieving full feeds was longer (weight mean difference 0.98 (95% CI 0.26-1.71, P = 0.008) days) compared with intermittent feeding infants. Pooled analysis indicated there were no significant difference in other variables such as feeding intolerance, duration of hospitalization, days to regain birth weight, days to first successful oral feeding, duration of parenteral feeding, weight growth, length increment, head circumference growth, proven necrotizing enterocolitis, and probable necrotizing enterocolitis. In subgroup analysis for birth weight (<1000 g and >1000 g), we did not identify significant difference in time to full feeds, time to regain birth weight, and duration of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent feeding may be more beneficial for low-birth weight infants, However, well-designed studies and evidenced-based clinical practice are required to determine the most appropriate feeding method for premature infants with low birth weight.