You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Total body water in full-term and preterm newborns: systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. Aneurin Young1,2,
  2. Lisa K Brown1,
  3. Sarah Ennis3,
  4. R Mark Beattie4,
  5. Mark John Johnson1,2
  1. 1 Department of Neonatal Medicine, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
  2. 2 NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre, University of Southampton and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
  3. 3 Human Genetics and Genomic Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
  4. 4 Department of Paediatric Gastroenterology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Aneurin Young, Department of Neonatal Medicine, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton SO16 6YD, UK; a.young{at}soton.ac.uk

Abstract

Background Total body water (TBW) is one component of fat-free mass and changes in TBW are influenced by fluid shifts (especially during transition to postnatal life), electrolyte balance and nutritional status. Normal values for term-born neonates and preterm infants at birth have not been defined in large cohorts, limiting investigation into its monitoring and use in clinical practice.

Objective To systematically review the evidence base for percentage of TBW in term-born infants, quantify the effect of prematurity on TBW at birth, and describe normal progression of TBW over time in preterm infants.

Methods Systematic review of Medline, Web of Science Core Collection and EBSCO-CINAHL (January 1946 to January 2020). Included articles used dilutional methods to assess TBW.

Results Searches identified 2349 articles of which 22 included data suitable for analysis. Mean TBW in term-born newborns was 73.8% (95% CI 72.47% to 75.06%, 15 studies, 433 infants). Meta-regression showed that TBW was higher in preterm infants (up to 90% at 26 weeks gestation, dropping to 75% at 36 weeks corrected gestation) and was negatively correlated with gestation at birth, falling 1.44% per week (95% CI 0.63% to 2.24%, 9 studies, 179 infants). Analysis of TBW over time during the ex utero growth of preterm infants was not possible due to paucity of data.

Conclusion This review defines the normal TBW percentage in term-born infants and confirms and quantifies previous findings that preterm infants have a higher TBW percentage.

  • growth
  • neonatology

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article. Data enquiries should be made to Aneurin Young (a.young@soton.ac.uk).

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2020-321112

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article. Data enquiries should be made to Aneurin Young (a.young@soton.ac.uk).

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @AneurinYoung, @RMBeattie50, @MarkJohnson800

    • Contributors AY contributed to the conception, design, data acquisition, data analysis, data interpretation and drafting of the work. LKB contributed to the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data. SE contributed to critical revision of the work for important intellectual content. MJJ and RMB contributed to the conception and design of the work, and to critical revision of the work for important intellectual content.

    • Funding The study was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre Southampton, UK.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.