Probiotic, zinc and lactose‐free formula in children with rotavirus diarrhea: Are they effective?

Dalgıç, Nazan; Sancar, Mesut; Bayraktar, Banu; Pullu, Mine; Haşim, Özlem

doi:10.1111/j.1442-200x.2011.03325.x

Cited by 47 publications

(78 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Briefly, only 1 study was adequate for all of the 4 methodological quality assessment parameters 43 and 1 was inadequate for all 4 parameters. 46 Eight studies were rated as adequate 14,16,19,37,43,45,48,51 and 4 were inadequate for generation of the allocation sequence, 17,39,46,47 and the method used for allocation sequence was unclear in 10 studies. 13,18,38,[40][41][42]44,49,50,52 Four studies were adequate, 14,43,45,48 14 studies were unclear, 13,16,18,19,37,38,[40][41][42]44,[49][50][51][52] and 4 studies were inadequate (as they used a method such as alternation.…”

Section: Risk Of Bias Within Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…38,40,42,51 Loss to follow-up was adequate (#10%) in 12 studies 13,16,17,19,[37][38][39][40]43,47,49,50 ; 7 studies were considered inadequate 14,41,[44][45][46]48,52 and 3 studies unclear for loss to followup. 18,47,51 The overall quality was assessed and 4 studies were rated as "good" (low risk for bias), 43,45,48,50 13 studies rated as "fair," which were susceptible to some bias, 13,14,16,18,19,37,38,[40][41][42]44,49,51 and 5 studies rated as "poor" (high risk for bias). 17,39,46,47,52 Findings From Meta-analysis Seventeen studies (2102 participants) reported duration of diarrhea.…”

Section: Risk Of Bias Within Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six studies were adequate, 41,[43][44][45]48,50 12 studies were inadequate, 13,14,[16][17][18][19]37,39,46,47,49,52 and 4 studies were unclear for blinding. 38,40,42,51 Loss to follow-up was adequate (#10%) in 12 studies 13,16,17,19,[37][38][39][40]43,47,49,50 ; 7 studies were considered inadequate 14,41,[44][45][46]48,52 and 3 studies unclear for loss to followup. 18,47,51 The overall quality was assessed and 4 studies were rated as "good" (low risk for bias), 43,45,48,50 13 studies rated as "fair," which were susceptible to some bias, 13,…”

Section: Risk Of Bias Within Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Patients were aged from 1 month to 15 years. Twelve studies enrolled inpatients, 13,[16][17][18][19][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] 5 enrolled outpatients, 14,37,46-48 and 2 enrolled both inpatients and outpatients. 49,50 There was no information about the hospitalization state of participants in 3 studies.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We tried to contact the authors of included studies for missing variable and relevant information. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Disagreements were resolved by discussion.…”

Section: Data Collection Process and Data Itemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Efficacy and Safety of Saccharomyces boulardii for Acute Diarrhea

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The efficacy of Saccharomyces boulardii for treatment of childhood diarrhea remains unclear. Our objective was to systematically review data on the effect of S. boulardii on acute childhood diarrhea. METHODS:Our data sources included Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and The Cochrane Library up to September 2013 without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized trials that evaluated effectiveness of S. boulardii for treatment of acute diarrhea in children were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated studies for eligibility and quality and extracted the data. RESULTS:In total, 1248 articles were identified, of which 22 met the inclusion criteria. Pooling data from trials showed that S. boulardii significantly reduced the duration of diarrhea (mean difference [MD], 219.7 hours; 95% confidence interval [CI], 226.05 to 213.34), stool frequency on day 2 (MD, 20.74; 95% CI, 21.38 to 20.10) and day 3 (MD, 21.24; 95% CI, 22.13 to 20.35), the risk for diarrhea on day 3 (risk ratio [RR], 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.60) and day 4 (RR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.59) after intervention compared with control. The studies included in this review were varied in the definition of diarrhea, the termination of diarrhea, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and their methodological quality. CONCLUSIONS:This review and meta-analysis show that S. boulardii is safe and has clear beneficial effects in children who have acute diarrhea. However, additional studies using head-to-head comparisons are needed to define the best dosage of S. boulardii for diarrhea with different causes. Pediatrics 2014;134:e176-e191

show abstract

Section: Risk Of Bias Within Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Of Bias Within Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Of Bias Within Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We tried to contact the authors of included studies for missing variable and relevant information. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Disagreements were resolved by discussion.…”

Section: Data Collection Process and Data Itemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Efficacy and Safety of Saccharomyces boulardii for Acute Diarrhea

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Probiotics for treating acute infectious diarrhoea

Collinson

Deans²,

Padua-Zamora

et al. 2020

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Probiotics may be effective in reducing the duration of acute infectious diarrhoea. Objectives To assess the effects of probiotics in proven or presumed acute infectious diarrhoea. Search methods We searched the trials register of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group, MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to 17 December 2019, as well as the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 12, 2019), in the Cochrane Library, and reference lists from studies and reviews. We included additional studies identified during external review. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials comparing a specified probiotic agent with a placebo or no probiotic in people with acute diarrhoea that is proven or presumed to be caused by an infectious agent. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently applied inclusion criteria, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. Primary outcomes were measures of diarrhoea duration (diarrhoea lasting ≥ 48 hours; duration of diarrhoea). Secondary outcomes were number of people hospitalized in community studies, duration of hospitalization in inpatient studies, diarrhoea lasting ≥ 14 days, and adverse events. Main results We included 82 studies with a total of 12,127 participants. These studies included 11,526 children (age < 18 years) and 412 adults (three studies recruited 189 adults and children but did not specify numbers in each age group). No cluster‐randomized trials were included. Studies varied in the definitions used for "acute diarrhoea" and "end of the diarrhoeal illness" and in the probiotic(s) tested. A total of 53 trials were undertaken in countries where both child and adult mortality was low or very low, and 26 where either child or adult mortality was high. Risk of bias was high or unclear in many studies, and there was marked statistical heterogeneity when findings for the primary outcomes were pooled in meta‐analysis. Effect size was similar in the sensitivity analysis and marked heterogeneity persisted. Publication bias was demonstrated from funnel plots for the main outcomes. In our main analysis of the primary outcomes in studies at low risk for all indices of risk of bias, no difference was detected between probiotic and control groups for the risk of diarrhoea lasting ≥ 48 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91 to 1.09; 2 trials, 1770 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence); or for duration of diarrhoea (mean difference (MD) 8.64 hours shorter, 95% CI 29.4 hours shorter to 12.1 hours longer; 6 trials, 3058 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). Effect size was similar and marked heterogeneity persisted in pre‐specified subgroup analyses of the primary outcomes that included all studies. These included analyses limited to the probiotics Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and ...

show abstract