L-glutamine/Finding
One finding, on its own
A single claim from the graph, with the grade computed from its study, the sentence it was drawn from, and the paper. This address does not change.
No detected effect on necrotising enterocolitis incidence
PreliminaryGrade D, Preliminary. Human evidence with major recorded weaknesses, or non-human, uncontrolled or unverified evidence.FindingNull result“We found that glutamine supplementation does not have a statistically significant effect on the incidence of systemic infection (typical relative risk 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.13); typical risk difference 0.01 (95% confidence interval -0.03 to 0.05)), necrotising enterocolitis (typical relative risk 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.33); typical risk difference 0.00 (95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.03)), days to full enteral nutrition (weighted mean difference -1.1 days (95% confidence interval -3.4 to 1.2)), or duration of hospital stay (weighted mean difference 0.65 days (95% confidence interval -2.9 to 4.2)).”
Quoted verbatim from Glutamine supplementation to prevent morbidity and mortality in preterm infants.. - Study
- meta-analysis
- Population
- very low birth weight preterm infants (pooled meta-analysis of six randomised trials, enteral and parenteral)
Effect 1.02 risk ratio, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.33
Glutamine supplementation to prevent morbidity and mortality in preterm infants.2005PMID:15674878Permalink
Keep reading
- Everything the graph holds on L-glutamine
- Every compound studied against Necrotising enterocolitis incidence
- How to read the grade and the marks
To cite this finding: https://catalystproject.ai/e/01M38TYN5WCMQFFE9D063BNT7R