High flow nasal cannula versus NCPAP, duration to full oral feeds in preterm infants: a randomised controlled trial
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    High flow nasal cannula versus NCPAP: No difference in time to full oral feeds
    • Jogender Kumar, Neonatologist Post Graduate Institute of Medical education and Research, Chandigarh India 160012

    We read with great interest the article by Sinead J Glackin et al, published in this journal and found the results impressive.[1]. However, we have certain observations about the conduct of the study.
    Even though it was a randomized controlled trial and authors mentioned that oral feeds were offered in both groups at least once every 72 hours and additional feeds were offered when neonates demonstrated feeding cues but they didn’t mention about the exact feeding schedule like frequency of oral feeding, volume per feed and rate of hike of feeds in each group. This bears an important implication on the primary outcome as well as the external validity of the study. If there is no well-defined policy then there will be individualization of practice and lot of bias in the study despite randomization. It’s also worth emphasizing here that the authors should have mentioned about the local guidelines practiced for feed hiking and definition of feed intolerance, for the sake of external validity.
    Despite being eligible and in a trial authors could give first oral feed 9-10 days after the enrollment. The reason for the delay of initiation of oral feeds for so many days despite eligibility is not very clear. Even in a randomized trail when we fail to initiate oral feeds before 33-34 weeks of corrected gestational age, it will not be feasible in routine practice. So, before using these results in clinical practice we should have strong evidence for the age of initiation of...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.