1982
DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.1982.tb09591.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

DIETARY PROTEIN FOR LOW BIRTHWEIGHT BABIES Sources and Assessment of Requirements

Abstract: Wharton BA, Scott PH and Berger HM (Sorrento Maternity Hospital, and Biochemistry Department, Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham, U.K.). Dietary protein for low birthweight babies. Sources and assessment of requirements. Acta Paediatr Scand, Suppl. 296:32, 1982. — Breastmilk is the best food for low birthweight babies for the first critical week(s) of life. In subsequent weeks, during rapid growth, formulas specially designed for this group of infants may be superior to ordinary breast milk substitutes. Modificati… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1984
1984
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 12 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Attempts were made to contact authors of nine studies, we received replies from four, but no additional information was received for the meta-analyses. Ninety-nine studies were excluded for reasons provided in Figure 1 : no original data/review articles [ 25 - 39 ], studies performed in developing countries [ 40 - 48 ], no numerical results [ 49 - 59 ], not 24-hour milk collection/pooled milk (required only for energy and fat contents) [ 7 - 9 , 60 - 70 ], no report of macro/micronutrient contents [ 36 , 71 - 107 ], did not report time frames used in the meta-analyses [ 108 - 116 ], other [ 117 , 118 ]. Energy was estimated in 11 studies using bomb calorimetry [ 11 , 12 , 18 , 119 - 126 ] and in five studies by calculation using values for the energy contributions from fat, protein, and carbohydrate [ 6 , 19 , 22 , 121 , 127 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Attempts were made to contact authors of nine studies, we received replies from four, but no additional information was received for the meta-analyses. Ninety-nine studies were excluded for reasons provided in Figure 1 : no original data/review articles [ 25 - 39 ], studies performed in developing countries [ 40 - 48 ], no numerical results [ 49 - 59 ], not 24-hour milk collection/pooled milk (required only for energy and fat contents) [ 7 - 9 , 60 - 70 ], no report of macro/micronutrient contents [ 36 , 71 - 107 ], did not report time frames used in the meta-analyses [ 108 - 116 ], other [ 117 , 118 ]. Energy was estimated in 11 studies using bomb calorimetry [ 11 , 12 , 18 , 119 - 126 ] and in five studies by calculation using values for the energy contributions from fat, protein, and carbohydrate [ 6 , 19 , 22 , 121 , 127 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%