The Therapeutic Dilemma of Antibiotic Duration in Medical Necrotizing Enterocolitis Across Neonatal Intensive Care Units: A Narrative Review

Medical Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC) presents a persistent clinical challenge in Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs): antibiotics are essential to management, yet evidence guiding their optimal duration remains limited. NEC is a leading gastrointestinal emergency in preterm infants linked to high mortality, prolonged hospital stays and long-standing consequences such as intestinal failure and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes [1,2]. Clinically, the disease is characterized by feeding intolerance, abdominal distension, systemic instability and radiographic findings including pneumatosis intestinalis, reflecting its heterogeneous and unpredictable course [3]. Despite advances in neonatal care, NEC continues to impose a substantial global burden, with marked variation in incidence, outcomes and management across institutions and regions [4,5].

Most infants with NEC are managed medically, commonly classified as Bell stage II disease, yet limited ability to predict progression or recovery remains [6]. Antibiotic therapy is a universal component of treatment, reflecting the roles of intestinal barrier disruption, bacterial translocation and inflammation in NEC pathophysiology [7]. However, the absence of a single causative pathogen or validated biomarkers of disease resolution leaves clinicians without objective criteria to guide antibiotic discontinuation [8]. Consequently, antibiotic duration varies widely across NICUs, with reported courses ranging from fewer than seven days to more than two weeks for infants with similar clinical presentations [9,10]. Insufficient treatment raises concern for recurrence, progression to surgical NEC or systemic infection, whereas prolonged antibiotic exposure in preterm infants is associated with microbiome disruption, invasive fungal infection, late-onset sepsis, antimicrobial resistance and potentially increased NEC risk [11-13]. Current recommendations generally suggest treatment durations of 7-14 days but provide limited guidance for individualized decision-making [14]. Given that ethical and methodological challenges have constrained randomized trials, the available evidence remains heterogeneous (retrospective cohorts, practice surveys, expert opinion and single-center quality improvement initiatives) [15]. In this context, a narrative synthesis is warranted to evaluate existing evidence, explore drivers of practice variation and identify priorities for future research.

Objectives

The objectives of this review were to:

• Summarize the range of antibiotic durations reported in medically managed necrotizing enterocolitis (Bell stage II-III) and describe the associated clinical outcomes as documented in the literature
• Discuss the key determinants of practice variability across neonatal intensive care units, including institutional protocols, diagnostic uncertainty and clinician risk assessment

Etiological Contributors and Clinical Considerations Influencing Antibiotic

Duration: Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a multifactorial disorder in preterm infants and the interplay of genetic, physiological and environmental factors contributes not only to disease susceptibility but also to variability in clinical management, particularly the duration of antibiotic therapy [16]. Clinicians often adjust therapy length based on perceived disease severity, risk of progression and patient- specific vulnerabilities, leading to marked heterogeneity across Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs).

Genetic Predisposition and Inflammatory Response

Genetic factors modulate susceptibility to NEC and influence the clinical course, which can affect clinicians’ decisions regarding antibiotic therapy. Variants in Toll- like receptor 4 (TLR4), NFκB1, NOD2 and interleukin genes (IL-6, IL17F) have been associated with heightened inflammatory responses to bacterial colonization, while loss-of-function variants in SIGIRR amplify TLR4-mediated intestinal inflammation [17-19]. Autophagy-related genes such as ATG16L1 further contribute to mucosal vulnerability [20]. Infants with such predispositions may present with more severe or rapidly progressing disease, prompting some NICUs to extend empiric antibiotic courses despite limited evidence, thereby contributing to inter-institutional variability.

Ischemia, Hypoxia-Reperfusion Injury and Hematologic Risk Factors

Preterm neonates are uniquely susceptible to intestinal ischemia and hypoxia- reperfusion injury, compounded by immature intestinal perfusion, stasis and delayed motility [21-23]. Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) results in chronic fetal hypoxia and preferential blood flow to vital organs, leaving the gut vulnerable to ischemic insults [24,25]. Early-life anemia and blood transfusions further compromise mucosal oxygenation and may trigger transfusion-associated NEC (TANEC) [26-29]. These risk factors influence clinicians’ risk assessment, often leading to longer empiric antibiotic regimens in infants perceived to be at higher risk for disease progression or complications. While the evidence supporting ischemia, hypoxia, anemia and transfusion exposure primarily establishes risk for NEC development rather than treatment response, these factors are frequently extrapolated by clinicians to justify prolonged antibiotic continuation in the post-diagnosis period, despite limited data demonstrating that extended duration mitigates ischemia-driven disease progression or recurrence.

Oxidative Stress and Gut Immaturity

Preterm neonates experience heightened oxidative stress due to high metabolic demand, immature antioxidant defenses and supplemental oxygen exposure [30]. Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) destroy intestinal epithelial cells and barrier integrity, synergizing with ischemic and inflammatory pathways to exacerbate NEC vulnerability [31-33]. Infants with signs of oxidative injury or severe prematurity may trigger more conservative antibiotic strategies, reflecting clinician concern for subtle but high-risk mucosal injury.

Feeding Practices and Microbial Colonization

Enteral nutrition strategies, human milk feeding and gut microbiome stability are additional determinants of perceived NEC risk. Exclusive human milk provides trophic and immunomodulatory factors that protect the gut [34,35], while early trophic feeding and standardized advancement improve outcomes [36]. Conversely, delayed or intermittent feeding may prolong mucosal immaturity and increase bacterial translocation risk. Variability in feeding protocols and the use of probiotics (e.g., Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Bifidobacterium infantis BB-02, B. lactis BB-12, Streptococcus thermophilus TH-4) contribute to differing clinician assessments of disease risk, influencing decisions on antibiotic duration across centers [37,38]. In practice, decisions regarding advancement or withholding of enteral feeds are frequently coupled to antibiotic continuation, such that delayed feeding tolerance or cautious refeeding often reinforces prolonged antimicrobial therapy, despite limited evidence that feeding readiness reliably reflects ongoing infectious risk or the need for extended antibiotic exposure.

Diagnostic Uncertainty and Staging

Accurate prompt diagnosis of NEC is challenging because of subtle clinical signs and variable radiographic findings [39]. Multiple staging systems exist for necrotizing enterocolitis, including the original Bell criteria, the Modified Bell Staging system and standardized case definitions developed by the Vermont Oxford Network (VON) [40]. Imaging modalities, including abdominal radiography and ultrasound with Doppler evaluation, provide essential information but are limited in sensitivity for early disease [41]. Diagnostic ambiguity often leads clinicians to extend empiric antibiotic therapy “to be safe,” particularly in infants with equivocal signs or risk factors for rapid deterioration. The combined influence of genetic susceptibility, ischemic and hematologic stressors, oxidative injury, feeding practices, microbiome status and diagnostic uncertainty creates a spectrum of perceived risk among preterm infants with medical NEC. This heterogeneity in patient factors and clinical presentation drives the wide variability in antibiotic duration observed across NICUs, as clinicians balance the competing risks of undertreatment and prolonged therapy in the absence of validated biomarkers or standardized evidence-based guidance.

Medical Management and Antibiotic Strategies

Management of Bell Stage II NEC centers on supportive care, bowel rest and broad-spectrum antibiotics, typically ampicillin, gentamicin and either metronidazole or clindamycin for 7-14 days [42]. Empiric antibiotic initiation at diagnosis is widely accepted as necessary to address suspected infection and inflammatory translocation; however, the decision to continue antibiotics beyond the initial stabilization phase represents a distinct stewardship challenge that is less clearly supported by evidence. The absence of a definitive pathogen and validated biomarkers for disease resolution makes optimal therapy duration uncertain. Studies demonstrate substantial variability across NICUs, with some centers using shorter courses (<7 days) and others extending therapy beyond two weeks [43,44]. Institutional protocols, clinician experience, disease severity and patient factors such as prematurity or comorbidities strongly influence decisions [45]. Prolonged antibiotic exposure can disrupt the developing microbiome, promote Gram-negative overgrowth and increase risks of late-onset sepsis, fungal infection and NEC progression, while excessively short courses may inadequately control infection. Quality improvement initiatives show that protocolized pathways can safely reduce exposure and improve consistency [46]. Overall, Bell Stage II NEC management exemplifies the clinical paradox: antibiotics are essential but variability in duration reflects uncertainty, risk tolerance and institutional practices, highlighting the need for evidence-based guidance to optimize outcomes.

Impact of Antibiotic Exposure on NEC Development and Outcomes

Antibiotics in medically managed NEC protect against bacterial translocation and systemic infection but can also cause harm when overused, contributing to wide variation in duration across NICUs [47]. Observational studies show that prolonged therapy-especially without confirmed infection-may increase NEC risk, delay full enteral feeds and prolong hospitalization [48,49]. Extended courses disrupt the neonatal gut microbiome, suppressing beneficial commensals like Bifidobacterium and favoring pathogenic Gram-negative organisms, which exacerbate inflammation and compromise mucosal integrity [50]. Shorter or limited antibiotic exposure, including maternal intrapartum therapy, appears less harmful and does not significantly affect NEC incidence in VLBW or preterm infants [51]. The lack of validated biomarkers to guide discontinuation, combined with clinician judgment, institutional protocols and perceived disease severity, drives substantial variability in practice. These findings emphasize the delicate balance between preventing disease progression and avoiding microbial dysbiosis, explaining why antibiotic duration remains highly heterogeneous in NICUs.

Evidence Analysis

This narrative review critically synthesized contemporary evidence on antibiotic duration in medically managed necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) to characterize current practices and associated outcomes across neonatal intensive care units (NICUs). A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science identified English-language studies published between January 2014 and December 2025, reflecting modern NICU practices and evolving NEC management, using predefined search terms including “necrotizing enterocolitis,” “medical NEC,” “Bell stage II NEC,” “Bell stage III NEC,” “antibiotic duration,” “antibiotic therapy,” “treatment duration,” “practice variation,” “NICU” and “quality improvement.” Eligible studies included clinical guidelines, expert consensus statements, clinician surveys, observational cohort studies and quality improvement initiatives that reported outcomes of antibiotic therapy specifically in medically managed NEC (Bell stage II-III), addressed antibiotic duration or protocolized approaches and were published in peer-reviewed journals, while studies focused on surgical NEC, prophylactic antibiotic exposure, non-human models, case reports or reports lacking substantive synthesis were excluded. For observational studies, specific inclusion criteria required clearly defined Bell stage II-III NEC, reported antibiotic duration as a primary or secondary outcome and adjustment for at least one confounder (e.g., gestational age, birth weight or disease severity). Titles, abstracts and full texts were reviewed, with data extracted on study design, population characteristics, NEC staging, antibiotic regimens and duration, clinical outcomes and measures of practice variation. Given substantial heterogeneity across studies, findings were synthesized narratively without formal meta-analysis or risk-of-bias assessment. Table 1 summarizes key studies on antibiotic duration in medical NEC (Bell stage II-III).

Table 1: Summary of Evidence on Antibiotic Duration in Medically Managed Necrotizing Enterocolitis

NEC: Necrotizing enterocolitis, NICU: Neonatal intensive care unit, LOS: Length of stay, TPN: Total parenteral nutrition, DOT: Days of therapy, APSA: American Pediatric Surgical Association, CHNC: Children’s Hospitals Neonatal Consortium, VON: Vermont Oxford Network, IDSA: Infectious Diseases Society of America, SIS: Surgical Infecti on Society, WSES: World Society of Emergency Surgery

Antibiotic duration in medically managed NEC varies widely across NICUs, driven by institutional protocols, diagnostic uncertainty and the absence of validated biomarkers [8,45,52]. Survey data show treatment decisions largely follow institutional norms rather than disease‑specific evidence [52]. Observational studies indicate that shorter, severity‑guided courses (5-14 days) are not associated with increased recurrence or progression to surgery, whereas prolonged exposure (≥14 days) correlates with delayed feeding, longer hospitalization and microbiome disruption [53-57]. However, confounding by disease severity and heterogeneous outcome definitions limit causal inference [53,54].

Practice considerations, based on the available descriptive evidence, may include exploring protocolized, severity‑guided duration pathways; using diagnostic uncertainty as an opportunity for daily reevaluation rather than automatic prolongation; and incorporating antibiotic duration into local stewardship audits. Future prospective multicenter studies with standardized outcomes and biomarker validation are needed to provide more definitive guidance.

Systematic synthesis of the available literature remains limited; evidence drawn from 375 infants across five heterogeneous studies was insufficient to define an optimal antibiotic duration for medical NEC [55]. More recent quality improvement initiatives suggest that protocolized approaches can safely reduce antibiotic exposure, with reduced antibiotic days reported in cohorts of 71 and 64 infants, respectively, without increased recurrence or mortality [56,57]. Nonetheless, the potential risks of too-short therapy, including disease recurrence or sepsis, remain underexplored, requiring careful clinical judgment. Collectively, these findings indicate that although antibiotics remain central to medical NEC management, prolonged therapy has not been shown to improve outcomes and emerging evidence supports shorter, standardized and severity-informed antibiotic strategies to reduce unnecessary exposure while maintaining clinical safety.

Antibiotic duration in medically managed NEC varies widely due to weak evidence and diagnostic uncertainty. Observational studies suggest shorter, severity‑guided regimens are feasible but prospective trials are lacking. Clinically, daily reassessment is key; stewardship should prioritize minimizing unnecessary exposure. Future research needs multicenter trials, standardized outcomes and biomarkers.

Strengths and Limitations

This narrative review comprehensively synthesizes biological, clinical and contextual drivers of antibiotic duration variability in medically managed NEC, highlighting institutional practice differences. However, heterogeneity across study designs and outcome definitions precluded meta‑analysis; reliance on observational data and quality improvement initiatives introduces potential publication bias and causal inferences are not possible.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no financial, commercial or other relationships that could be perceived as a conflict of interest.

1. Wang, Y. et al. “Neurodevelopmental Outcomes of Preterm Infants with Necrotizing Enterocolitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” European Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 183, 2024, pp. 3147-3158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00431-024-055 69-5.
2. Matei, A. et al. “Neurodevelopmental Impairment in Necrotising Enterocolitis Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Archives of Disease in Childhood, vol. 105, 2020, pp. 328-334. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2019-317830.
3. Hu, Y. et al. “Differentiating Clinical Characteristics between Necrotizing Enterocolitis and Food Protein-Induced Enterocolitis Syndrome with Pneumatosis Intestinalis.” Journal of the College of Physicians and Surgeons Pakistan, vol. 32, 2022, pp. 646-650. https://doi.org/10.29271/jcpsp. 2022.05.646.
4. Han, S.M. et al. “Trends in Incidence and Outcomes of Necrotizing Enterocolitis over 12 Years: A Multicenter Cohort Analysis.” Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 55, 2020, pp. 998-1001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2020.02.046.
5. Wolf, M.F. et al. “Trends and Racial and Geographic Differences in Infant Mortality Due to Necrotizing Enterocolitis in the United States, 1999-2020.” JAMA Network Open, vol. 6, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanet workopen.2023.1511.
6. Jones, I.H. et al. “Contemporary Outcomes for Infants with Necrotizing Enterocolitis: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 220, 2020, pp. 86-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jpeds.2019.11.011.
7. Singh, D.K. et al. “Necrotizing Enterocolitis: Bench to Bedside Approaches and Advancing Disease Understanding.” Frontiers in Pediatrics, vol. 10, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fped.2022.1107404.
8. Kim, J.H. et al. “Challenges in Diagnosing Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Pediatric Research, vol. 88, 2020, pp. 16-20. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-020-1090-4.
9. Aurora, M. et al. “Standardizing the Evaluation and Management of Necrotizing Enterocolitis in a Level IV NICU.” Pediatrics, vol. 150, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1542/ peds.2022-056616.
10. Alene, T. et al. “Time to Occurrence of Necrotizing Enterocolitis and Its Predictors among Low Birth Weight Neonates.” Frontiers in Pediatrics, vol. 10, 2022. https://doi. org/10.3389/fped.2022.959631.
11. Chen, J. et al. “Predictive Factors for Rapid Progression in Preterm Neonates with Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Frontiers in Pediatrics, vol. 10, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2022. 970998.
12. Minotti, C. et al. “Antimicrobial Resistance Patterns and Empirical Antibiotic Treatment in Neonatal Sepsis: A 12-Year Study.” Antibiotics, vol. 12, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/ antibiotics12101488.
13. Jiang, S. et al. “Epidemiology and Microbiology of Late-Onset Sepsis among Preterm Infants in China.” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 96, 2020, pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.03.034.
14. Mena, R. et al. “Conservative Management of Necrotizing Enterocolitis and Intestinal Strictures.” European Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 35, 2025, pp. 224-231. https://doi. org/10.1055/a-2426-9723.
15. Kappel, S.S. et al. “Parental Consent to Neonatal Clinical Studies.” Acta Paediatrica, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1111/ apa.70333.
16. Sampath, V. et al. “SIGIRR Genetic Variants in Premature Infants with Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Pediatrics, vol. 135, 2015, e1530-e1534. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-3386.
17. Sodhi, C.P. et al. “Toll-Like Receptor-4 Inhibits Enterocyte Proliferation in Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Gastroenterology, vol. 138, 2010, pp. 185-196. https://doi.org/10.1053/j. gastro.2009.09.045.
18. Yu, W. et al. “Short-Chain Fatty Acids Ameliorate NEC-like Intestinal Injury via Notch1 Signaling.” American Journal of Physiology-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology, vol. 324, 2023, pp. G1-G12. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpgi.00057.20.
19. Härtel, C. et al. “NOD2 Loss-of-Function Mutations and Necrotizing Enterocolitis Risk.” Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, vol. 22, 2016, pp. 249-256. https://doi.org/10.1097/ MIB.0000000000000658.
20. Sampath, V. et al. “ATG16L1 Variant Association with Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Pediatric Research, vol. 81, 2017, pp. 582-588. https://doi.org/10.1038/pr.2016.260.
21. Kaplina, A. et al. “Necrotizing Enterocolitis: Hypoxia, Microbiome and Microbial Metabolites.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 24, 2023. https://doi. org/10.3390/ijms24032471.
22. Berdon, W.E. et al. “Necrotizing Enterocolitis in the Premature Infant.” Radiology, vol. 83, 1964, pp. 879-887. https://doi.org/10.1148/83.5.879.
23. Müller, M.J. et al. “Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Premature Infants and Newborns.” Journal of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, vol. 9, 2016, pp. 151-158. https://doi.org/10.3233/ NPM-169151.
24. Manogura, A.C. et al. “Predictors of Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Growth-Restricted Preterm Neonates.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 198, 2008, pp. 638.e1-638.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.11.048.
25. Gamsu, H.R. et al. “Enteral Hypoxia/Ischaemia and Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Seminars in Neonatology, vol. 2, 1997, pp. 245-254. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1084-2756(97) 80031-0.
26. Singh, R. et al. “Association of Necrotizing Enterocolitis with Anemia and Transfusions.” Journal of Perinatology, vol. 31, 2011, pp. 176-182. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2010.145.
27. El-Dib, M. et al. “Red Blood Cell Transfusion and Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Journal of Perinatology, vol. 31, 2011, pp. 183-187. https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2010.157.
28. Song, J. et al. “Severe Anemia, Transfusion and Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” PLoS One, vol. 16, 2021. https://doi.org/10. 1371/journal.pone.0254810.
29. Khashu, M. et al. “Transfusion-Associated Necrotizing Enterocolitis: Clinical Review.” Newborn, vol. 1, 2022, pp. 201-208. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-11002-0005.
30. Almeida, V.O. et al. “Neonatal Diseases and Oxidative Stress in Premature Infants.” Journal of Pediatrics (Rio J.), vol. 98, 2022, pp. 455-462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jped.2021.11. 008.
31. Xu, L. et al. “Parthanatos in Intestinal Epithelial Injury during Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Cell Death Discovery, vol. 10, 2024, 345. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41420-024-02114-z.
32. Gershner, G.H. et al. “Redox Chemistry Implications for Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 25, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms25158 416.
33. Wang, H.C. et al. “Molecular Mechanisms of Hyperoxia-Induced Neonatal Intestinal Injury.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 24, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijms24054366.
34. Fu, C. et al. “Human Breast Milk as a Treatment for Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Early Human Development, vol. 184, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2023. 105833.
35. Beharry, K.D. et al. “Factors Influencing Neonatal Gut Microbiome and Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Microorganisms, vol. 11, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms 11102528.
36. Devi, U. et al. “Feeding the Most Fragile: Nutrition and Necrotizing Enterocolitis Prevention.” International Journal of Advanced Medical and Health Research, vol. 12, 2025, pp. 76-85. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijamr.ijamr_118_25.
37. Sajankila, N. et al. “Current and Future Methods of Probiotic Therapy for Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Frontiers in Pediatrics, vol. 11, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3389/fped. 2023.1120459.
38. Shah, S. et al. “Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG to Reduce Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Indian Pediatrics, 2026. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s13312-025-00252-w.
39. Mishra, V. et al. “Imaging for Diagnosis and Assessment of Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Newborn, vol. 1, 2022, pp. 182-189. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-11002-0002.
40. Bhattacharjee, I. et al. “Ultrasound for Early Detection of Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Diagnostics, vol. 15, 2025. https:// doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15151852.
41. Dilley, M. et al. “Hypersensitivity Reactions to Antibiotics.” Clinical Reviews in Allergy and Immunology, vol. 62, 2022, pp. 463-475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12016-021-08878-x.
42. Kamitsuka, M.D. et al. “Incidence of Necrotizing Enterocolitis after Standardized Feeding Schedules.” Pediatrics, vol. 105, 2000, pp. 379-384. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.105.2.379.
43. Alexander, V.N. et al. “Antibiotic Exposure and Risk of Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 159, 2011, pp. 392-397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2011. 02.035.
44. Alshaikh, B.N. et al. “Quality Improvement Initiative to Reduce Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Pediatrics, vol. 152, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2023-061273.
45. Ting, J.Y. et al. “Antimicrobial Therapy for Common NICU Conditions.” Frontiers in Pediatrics, vol. 10, 2022. https://doi. org/10.3389/fped.2022.894005.
46. Young, L. et al. “Delayed Enteral Feeding to Prevent Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001 970.pub6.
47. Salas, A.A. et al. “Time to Full Enteral Feeds and Late-Onset Sepsis.” JAMA Network Open, vol. 8, 2025. https:// doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.43940.
48. Tobias, J. et al. “Bifidobacterium infantis and Reduction of Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 244, 2022, pp. 64-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.12.070.
49. Strobel, K.M. et al. “Early Antibiotic Exposure and Necrotizing Enterocolitis Risk.” Pediatric Research, vol. 98, 2025, pp. 137-143. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-025-03928-y.
50. Blackwood, B.P. et al. “Variability in Antibiotic Duration for Medically Managed Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 52, 2017, pp. 994-998. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2016.09.046.
51. Bull, C.T. et al. “Antibiotic Duration and Outcomes in Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 56, 2021, pp. 1035-1041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg. 2020.09.021.
52. Ahmad, I. et al. “Variation in Antibiotic Duration and Outcomes in Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Journal of Perinatology, vol. 42, 2022, pp. 1201-1209. https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41372-022-01375-1.
53. Gill, E.M. et al. “Antibiotic Regimens and Duration in Necrotizing Enterocolitis: A Systematic Review.” BMC Pediatrics, vol. 22, 2022, 222. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-022-03120-9.
54. Pace, D.J. et al. “Standardizing Antibiotic Duration for Medical Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 58, 2023, pp. 2114-2120. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2023.06.009.
55. Mahmood, Z. et al. “Standardizing Antibiotic and Feeding Practices Following Necrotizing Enterocolitis.” Journal of Perinatology, vol. 44, 2024, pp. 587-593. https://doi. org/10.1038/s41372-023-01879-4.
56. Allana, A. et al. “Quality Improvement Project to Improve Adherence to Best Practices to Decrease Incidence of Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Preterm Infants.” Children, vol. 12, 2025, 176. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12020176.
57. Alshaikh, B.N. et al. “A Quality Improvement Initiative to Reduce Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Very Preterm Infants.” Pediatrics, vol. 152, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2023-061273.