Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Fortification of Human Milk for Preterm Infants: Update and Recommendations of the European Milk Bank Association (EMBA) Working Group on Human Milk Fortification

Open access
Arslanoglu, Sertac, Boquien, Clair-Yves, King, Caroline, Lamireau, Delphine, Tonetto, Paola, Barnett, Debbie, Bertino, Enrico, Gaya, Antoni, Gebauer, Corinna, Grovslien, Anne, Moro, Guido E., Weaver, Gillian, Wesolowska, Aleksandra Maria, Picaud, Jean-Charles·2019·Frontiers in Pediatrics

Abstract

Evidence indicates that human milk (HM) is the best form of nutrition uniquely suited not only to term but also to preterm infants conferring health benefits in both the short and long-term. However, HM does not provide sufficient nutrition for the very low birth weight (VLBW) infant when fed at the usual feeding volumes leading to slow growth with the risk of neurocognitive impairment and other poor health outcomes such as retinopathy and bronchopulmonary dysplasia. HM should be supplemented (fortified) with the nutrients in short supply, particularly with protein, calcium, and phosphate to meet the high requirements of this group of babies. In this paper the European Milk Bank Association (EMBA) Working Group on HM Fortification discusses the existing evidence in this field, gives an overview of different fortification approaches and definitions, outlines the gaps in knowledge and gives recommendations for practice and suggestions for future research. EMBA recognizes that "Standard Fortification," which is currently the most utilized regimen in neonatal intensive care units, still falls short in supplying sufficient protein for some VLBW infants. EMBA encourages the use of "Individualized Fortification" to optimize nutrient intake. "Adjustable Fortification" and "Targeted Fortification" are 2 methods of individualized fortification. The quality and source of human milk fortifiers constitute another important topic. There is work looking at human milk derived fortifiers, but it is still too early to draw precise conclusions about their use. The pros and cons are discussed in this Commentary in addition to the evidence around use of fortifiers post discharge.

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 · 10.3389/fped.2019.00076

Cites

89 of 89 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 89 references

Metadata

Authors
Arslanoglu, S., Boquien, C.-Y., King, C., Lamireau, D., Tonetto, P., Barnett, D., Bertino, E., Gaya, A., Gebauer, C., Grovslien, A., Moro, G. E., Weaver, G., Wesolowska, A. M., & Picaud, J.-C.
Venue
Frontiers in Pediatrics
Published
2019-03-22
Volume
7
Pages
76-76
ISSN
2296-2360 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2925195604
Cited by
309
References
89
FWCI
21.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Fortification of Human Milk for Preterm Infants: Update and Recommendations of the European Milk Bank Association (EMBA) Working Group on Human Milk Fortification. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fped.2019.00076
The paper
Arslanoglu, S., Boquien, C.-Y., King, C., Lamireau, D., Tonetto, P., Barnett, D., Bertino, E., Gaya, A., Gebauer, C., Grovslien, A., Moro, G. E., Weaver, G., Wesolowska, A. M., & Picaud, J.-C. (2019). Fortification of Human Milk for Preterm Infants: Update and Recommendations of the European Milk Bank Association (EMBA) Working Group on Human Milk Fortification. Frontiers in Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2019.00076

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.