Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 621

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Trial of Donor Human Milk Versus Preterm Formula as Substitutes for Mothers' Own Milk in the Feeding of Extremely Premature Infants

Schanler, Richard J., Lau, Chantal, Hurst, Nancy M., Smith, Elliot O'Brian·2005·Pediatrics

Abstract

Objective. Compared with preterm formula (PF), mother's milk (MM) is associated with lower rates of late-onset sepsis (LOS) and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) among premature infants. Because not all mothers of premature infants produce sufficient milk to supply their infants throughout hospitalization, we reasoned that pasteurized donor human milk (DM) would be a suitable alternative. Methods. Extremely premature infants (<30 weeks of gestation) whose mothers intended to breastfeed were assigned randomly to receive either pasteurized DM or PF if the supply of their own MM became insufficient during the study (birth to 90 days of age or hospital discharge). Infection-related events (LOS, NEC, meningitis, presumed sepsis, or urinary tract infection) that occurred after the attainment of a milk intake of 50 mL/kg, dietary intake, growth, skin-to-skin contact, and duration of hospital stay were compared. The primary analysis compared groups DM and PF on an intent-to-treat basis. If no differences were noted, then these groups were combined and compared with the reference group, group MM. If differences were noted, then the subsequent analyses compared each group with group MM. Results. Of 243 infants, 70 (29%) received only MM; group DM included 81 infants and group PF included 92 infants. Because of poor weight gain, 17 infants (21%), all in group DM, were switched to PF. There were no differences in birth weight, gestational age, multiple births, and age at attainment of feeding of 50 mL/kg among groups. There were no differences between group DM and group PF in LOS and/or NEC, other infection-related events, hospital stay, or number of deaths. Group DM received a greater intake of milk and more nutritional supplements but had a slower rate of weight gain, compared with group PF. Compared with groups DM and PF, group MM had fewer episodes of LOS and/or NEC and total infection-related events and a shorter duration of hospital stay. Group MM also had fewer Gram-negative organisms isolated from blood cultures than did the other groups. Conclusions. In this randomized, blinded trial of feeding of extremely premature infants, we found that, as a substitute for MM, DM offered little observed short-term advantage over PF for feeding extremely premature infants. Advantages to an exclusive diet of MM were observed in terms of fewer infection-related events and shorter hospital stays.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2004-1974

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Cited by

See all 621

Metadata

Authors
Schanler, R. J., Lau, C., Hurst, N. M., & Smith, E. O.
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2005-08-01
Volume
116
Issue
2
Pages
400-406
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W2154779389
Cited by
621
References
16
FWCI
17.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Randomized Trial of Donor Human Milk Versus Preterm Formula as Substitutes for Mothers' Own Milk in the Feeding of Extremely Premature Infants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1542/peds.2004-1974
The paper
Schanler, R. J., Lau, C., Hurst, N. M., & Smith, E. O. (2005). Randomized Trial of Donor Human Milk Versus Preterm Formula as Substitutes for Mothers' Own Milk in the Feeding of Extremely Premature Infants. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-1974

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.