A National Survey of Neonatologists' Perspectives on Probiotics Use in Neonatal Intensive Care Units in the U.S.A.

IF 1.2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Clinical Medicine & Research Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.3121/cmr.2024.1848
Mariha Khan, Brooke Delgoffe, Rachel Gabor, Nageshwar Chauhan, Nirzar Parikh, Noor Ketana, Aditya Joshi
{"title":"A National Survey of Neonatologists' Perspectives on Probiotics Use in Neonatal Intensive Care Units in the U.S.A.","authors":"Mariha Khan, Brooke Delgoffe, Rachel Gabor, Nageshwar Chauhan, Nirzar Parikh, Noor Ketana, Aditya Joshi","doi":"10.3121/cmr.2024.1848","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> Most recent clinical reports from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) concluded current evidence does not support routine universal administration of probiotics to preterm infants, particularly those with birth weight <1000 grams. Despite this, the use of probiotics is increasing in US neonatal intensive care units (NICU).<b>Objectives:</b> Collaborating with the Perinatal Neonatal Medicine of AAP, we conducted a national survey to obtain neonatologist opinion on probiotics use.<b>Methods:</b> Survey questionnaires were sent to 3000 neonatologists via email.<b>Results:</b> Of 3000 potential respondents, 249 (8.3 %) completed the survey. Seventy-five (30%) neonatologists working in 23 different NICUs reported using probiotics in their practice, while 168 (70%) neonatologists working in 54 different NICUs reported not using probiotics. Of those not currently use probiotics, 49% indicated they would consider using probiotics in the future vs. 12% indicating they would not use probiotics. The most common indication for probiotics use was average gestational age < 32 weeks and mean birth weight < 1500 grams. Probiotics were discontinued at mean gestational age of 35 weeks. Respondents who prescribe probiotics were more likely to work in a setting without fellowship or residency training (48% vs 20%). Probiotics users were more often from the West (29 % vs 7%) and less often from Northeast (5% vs 34%) compared to non-users. The proportion of those using probiotics did not significantly differ by NICU size, NICU level, or years working in a NICU. Similac Tri-Blend, Evivo, and Culturelle were the top three probiotics used in the respondent's NICU.<b>Conclusion:</b> Though a majority of respondents are not currently using probiotics in their NICU, a large number of nonusers are interested in using probiotics in the future. Differences continue to exist in the brand of probiotics used in US NICUs.</p>","PeriodicalId":47429,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Medicine & Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11149948/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Medicine & Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3121/cmr.2024.1848","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Most recent clinical reports from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) concluded current evidence does not support routine universal administration of probiotics to preterm infants, particularly those with birth weight <1000 grams. Despite this, the use of probiotics is increasing in US neonatal intensive care units (NICU).Objectives: Collaborating with the Perinatal Neonatal Medicine of AAP, we conducted a national survey to obtain neonatologist opinion on probiotics use.Methods: Survey questionnaires were sent to 3000 neonatologists via email.Results: Of 3000 potential respondents, 249 (8.3 %) completed the survey. Seventy-five (30%) neonatologists working in 23 different NICUs reported using probiotics in their practice, while 168 (70%) neonatologists working in 54 different NICUs reported not using probiotics. Of those not currently use probiotics, 49% indicated they would consider using probiotics in the future vs. 12% indicating they would not use probiotics. The most common indication for probiotics use was average gestational age < 32 weeks and mean birth weight < 1500 grams. Probiotics were discontinued at mean gestational age of 35 weeks. Respondents who prescribe probiotics were more likely to work in a setting without fellowship or residency training (48% vs 20%). Probiotics users were more often from the West (29 % vs 7%) and less often from Northeast (5% vs 34%) compared to non-users. The proportion of those using probiotics did not significantly differ by NICU size, NICU level, or years working in a NICU. Similac Tri-Blend, Evivo, and Culturelle were the top three probiotics used in the respondent's NICU.Conclusion: Though a majority of respondents are not currently using probiotics in their NICU, a large number of nonusers are interested in using probiotics in the future. Differences continue to exist in the brand of probiotics used in US NICUs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新生儿科医生对美国新生儿重症监护病房使用益生菌的看法全国调查
导言:美国儿科学会(AAP)最近的临床报告认为,目前的证据并不支持对早产儿,尤其是出生体重有异常的早产儿常规使用益生菌:我们与美国儿科学会围产期新生儿医学会合作开展了一项全国性调查,以了解新生儿科医生对使用益生菌的看法:方法:通过电子邮件向 3000 名新生儿科医生发送调查问卷:在 3000 名潜在受访者中,有 249 人(8.3%)完成了调查。在 23 个不同的新生儿重症监护室工作的 75 名(30%)新生儿科医生表示在他们的工作中使用益生菌,而在 54 个不同的新生儿重症监护室工作的 168 名(70%)新生儿科医生表示不使用益生菌。在目前不使用益生菌的医生中,49% 的人表示将来会考虑使用益生菌,12% 的人表示不会使用益生菌。使用益生菌的最常见指征是平均胎龄小于 32 周和平均出生体重小于 1500 克。平均胎龄 35 周时停用益生菌。开具益生菌处方的受访者更有可能在没有接受过研究或住院医师培训的环境中工作(48% 对 20%)。与不使用益生菌的受访者相比,益生菌使用者更多来自西部(29% 对 7%),而来自东北部的受访者较少(5% 对 34%)。使用益生菌的比例与新生儿重症监护室的规模、新生儿重症监护室的级别或在新生儿重症监护室工作的年限没有明显差异。Similac Tri-Blend、Evivo 和 Culturelle 是受访者所在新生儿重症监护室使用最多的三种益生菌:结论:尽管大多数受访者目前没有在其新生儿重症监护室使用益生菌,但大量未使用益生菌的受访者有兴趣在未来使用益生菌。美国新生儿重症监护室使用的益生菌品牌仍然存在差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Medicine & Research
Clinical Medicine & Research MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Clinical Medicine & Research is a peer reviewed publication of original scientific medical research that is relevant to a broad audience of medical researchers and healthcare professionals. Articles are published quarterly in the following topics: -Medicine -Clinical Research -Evidence-based Medicine -Preventive Medicine -Translational Medicine -Rural Health -Case Reports -Epidemiology -Basic science -History of Medicine -The Art of Medicine -Non-Clinical Aspects of Medicine & Science
期刊最新文献
Crafting the Future Doctor: Mentorship in the First Year of Medical School. Diagnostic Accuracy of AI Algorithms in Aortic Stenosis Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Extensive Invasive Sinusitis Secondary to Streptococcus Intermedius Infection. Long COVID or Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) in Children and Adolescents. Potential Application of Anti-Cyclic Citrullinated Peptide (Anti-CCP) for the Diagnosis of Periodontal Disease in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis with Cut-Off Determination.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1