Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Nutritional intake and growth in very low birth weight infants: a comparison of standardized versus parent-led complementary feeding.

Created on 09 Aug 2026

Authors

Melanie Gsoellpointner, Margarita Thanhaeuser, Margit Kornsteiner-Krenn, Fabian Eibensteiner, Robin Ristl, Bernd Jilma, Sophia Brandstetter, Angelika Berger, Nadja Haiden

Published in

European journal of clinical nutrition. Aug 08, 2026. Epub Aug 08, 2026.

Abstract

The complementary feeding (CF) period is critical for ensuring adequate nutrient intake to support optimal growth in very low birth weight (VLBW) infants. This analysis compares nutritional intake and growth across two CF strategies: a standardized, protocol-driven approach and a non-standardized, parent-led approach. Both cohorts included infants with a birth weight <1500 g. The standardized group followed an age-dependent CF protocol utilizing commercial baby jars, whereas the non-standardized cohort practiced parent-led feeding without dietary restrictions. Nutritional intake was assessed using 3-day dietary records. Infants in the non-standardized study had significantly higher intakes of protein, fat, arachidonic and docosahexaenoic acid, while the standardized cohort showed higher iron and zinc intakes from 6 months corrected age onwards. Despite nutritional differences, growth was similar between cohorts. This comparison demonstrates notable differences in nutrient intake between CF approaches and may guide individualized strategies to support the nutritional needs of VLBW infants. Clinical trial registration: Randomized, standardized study: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01809548. Non-standardized, prospective study: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02936219.

PMID:
42570946
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 09 Aug 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 6
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement