新生儿重症监护病房的喂养:丸喂与连续喂的比较

Brittany Thomson MSN, NP-C
{"title":"新生儿重症监护病房的喂养:丸喂与连续喂的比较","authors":"Brittany Thomson MSN, NP-C","doi":"10.1053/j.nainr.2016.08.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The debate regarding the best feeding method for premature infants is ongoing. Should they be nourished by <em>bolus</em> or <em>continuous feeding</em><span><span>? The purpose of this review of literature was to determine best practice for feeding patients among the neonatal population who are prone to feeding intolerances and gastrointestinal complications. Literature search of Cochrane, </span>CINAHL<span><span><span><span>, Medline, and EBSCOhost databases was performed. The results of the literature review have shown that there are conflicting results as to whether one feeding method is safer than the other or if one method is more likely to increase or decrease the chances that a </span>preterm infant will develop </span>NEC. Further research is needed in order to establish results of the safest feeding method among premature infants. Perhaps additional </span>randomized control trials<span> (RCT) would be the best type of quantitative experimental study to be used to evaluate the safety and efficacy of continuous versus bolus enteric feedings among premature infants.</span></span></span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":87414,"journal":{"name":"Newborn and infant nursing reviews : NAINR","volume":"16 3","pages":"Pages 126-128"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1053/j.nainr.2016.08.006","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feeding in the NICU: Comparing Bolus and Continuous Feedings\",\"authors\":\"Brittany Thomson MSN, NP-C\",\"doi\":\"10.1053/j.nainr.2016.08.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The debate regarding the best feeding method for premature infants is ongoing. Should they be nourished by <em>bolus</em> or <em>continuous feeding</em><span><span>? The purpose of this review of literature was to determine best practice for feeding patients among the neonatal population who are prone to feeding intolerances and gastrointestinal complications. Literature search of Cochrane, </span>CINAHL<span><span><span><span>, Medline, and EBSCOhost databases was performed. The results of the literature review have shown that there are conflicting results as to whether one feeding method is safer than the other or if one method is more likely to increase or decrease the chances that a </span>preterm infant will develop </span>NEC. Further research is needed in order to establish results of the safest feeding method among premature infants. Perhaps additional </span>randomized control trials<span> (RCT) would be the best type of quantitative experimental study to be used to evaluate the safety and efficacy of continuous versus bolus enteric feedings among premature infants.</span></span></span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87414,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Newborn and infant nursing reviews : NAINR\",\"volume\":\"16 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 126-128\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1053/j.nainr.2016.08.006\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Newborn and infant nursing reviews : NAINR\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1527336916300563\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Newborn and infant nursing reviews : NAINR","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1527336916300563","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

关于早产儿最佳喂养方法的争论仍在继续。他们应该通过小剂量还是连续喂养来获得营养?本文献综述的目的是确定在新生儿人群中喂养患者的最佳做法,这些患者容易出现喂养不耐受和胃肠道并发症。对Cochrane、CINAHL、Medline和EBSCOhost数据库进行文献检索。文献综述的结果表明,关于一种喂养方法是否比另一种更安全,或者一种喂养方法是否更有可能增加或减少早产儿患上NEC的机会,结果相互矛盾。为了确定早产儿最安全喂养方法的结果,需要进一步的研究。也许额外的随机对照试验(RCT)将是最好的定量实验研究类型,用于评估早产儿连续与大剂量肠道喂养的安全性和有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Feeding in the NICU: Comparing Bolus and Continuous Feedings

The debate regarding the best feeding method for premature infants is ongoing. Should they be nourished by bolus or continuous feeding? The purpose of this review of literature was to determine best practice for feeding patients among the neonatal population who are prone to feeding intolerances and gastrointestinal complications. Literature search of Cochrane, CINAHL, Medline, and EBSCOhost databases was performed. The results of the literature review have shown that there are conflicting results as to whether one feeding method is safer than the other or if one method is more likely to increase or decrease the chances that a preterm infant will develop NEC. Further research is needed in order to establish results of the safest feeding method among premature infants. Perhaps additional randomized control trials (RCT) would be the best type of quantitative experimental study to be used to evaluate the safety and efficacy of continuous versus bolus enteric feedings among premature infants.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Table of Contents Editorial Board The NICU Lighted Environment Probability of an Autism Diagnosis by Gestational Age Maternal and Neonatal Birth Factors Affecting the Age of ASD Diagnosis
×
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