MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2053666348 · doi:10.1002/ebch.238

Cochrane review: Probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic‐associated diarrhea

2008· article· en· W2053666348 sur OpenAlexaff
BC Johnston, AL Supina, Maria B. Ospina, Sunita Vohra

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineAntibiotic-associated diarrheaDiarrheaAdverse effectCochrane LibraryRelative riskPlaceboAntibioticsInternal medicinePopulationMEDLINEMeta-analysisIntensive care medicineConfidence intervalAlternative medicineEnvironmental healthClostridium difficileMicrobiologyPathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background Antibiotics alter the microbial balance within the gastrointestinal tract. Probiotics may prevent antibiotic‐associated diarrhea (AAD) via restoration of the gut microflora. Antibiotics are prescribed frequently in children and AAD is common in this population. Objectives To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of probiotics (any specified strain or dose) for the prevention of antibiotic‐associated diarrhea in children. To assess adverse events associated with the use of probiotics when co‐administered with antibiotics in children. Search strategy MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL , AMED, and the Web of Science (inception to August 2006) were searched along with specialized registers including the Cochrane IBD/FBD Review Group, CISCOM, Chalmers PedCAM Research Register and trial registries from inception to 2005. Letters were sent to authors of included trials, nutra/pharmaceutical companies, and experts in the field requesting additional information on ongoing or unpublished trials. Conference proceedings, dissertation abstracts, and reference lists from included and relevant articles were hand searched. Selection criteria Randomized, parallel, controlled (placebo, active, or no treatment) trials comparing co‐administered probiotics with antibiotics for the prevention of diarrhea secondary to antibiotic use in children (0 to 18 years). Data collection and analysis Methodological quality assessment and data extraction were conducted independently by two authors (BCJ, AS). Dichotomous data (incidence of diarrhea, adverse events) were combined using pooled relative risks, and continuous data (mean duration of diarrhea, mean daily stool frequency) as weighted mean differences, along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Adverse events were summarized using risk difference. For overall pooled results on the incidence of diarrhea, a priori sensitivity analyses included per protocol versus intention to treat, random versus fixed effects, and methodological quality criterion. Subgroup analysis were conducted on probiotic strain, dose, definition of antibiotic‐associated diarrhea, and antibiotic agent. Main results Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Trials included treatment with either Lactobacilli spp ., Bifidobacterium spp. , Streptococcus spp. , or Saccharomyces boulardii alone or in combination. Six studies used a single strain probiotic agent and four combined two probiotic strains. The per protocol analysis for 9/10 trials reporting on the incidence of diarrhea show statistically significant results favouring probiotics over active/non active controls (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.74). However, intention to treat analysis showed non‐significant results overall (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.63). Five of ten trials monitored for adverse events (n = 647); none reported a serious adverse event. Authors' conclusions Probiotics show promise for the prevention of pediatric AAD. While per protocol analysis yields treatment effect estimates that are both statistically and clinically significant, as does analysis of high quality studies, the estimate from the intention to treat analysis was not statistically significant. Future studies should involve probiotic strains and doses with the most promising evidence (e.g., Lactobacillus GG , Lactobacillus sporogenes , Saccharomyces boulardii at 5 to 40 billion colony forming units/day). Research done to date does not permit determination of the effect of age (e.g., infant versus older children) or antibiotic duration (e.g., 5 days versus 10 days). Future trials would benefit from a validated primary outcome measure for antibiotic‐associated diarrhea that is sensitive to change and reflects what treatment effect clinicians, parents, and children consider important. The current data are promising, but it is premature to routinely recommend probiotics for the prevention of pediatric AAD. Plain language summary It is premature to routinely recommend probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic‐associated diarrhea (AAD) Studies of probiotics for the prevention of pediatric AAD. Ten studies were reviewed and provide the best evidence we have. Study quality was mostly good overall. The studies tested 1986 children (aged 0 to 18 years) who were receiving probiotics co‐administered with antibiotics to prevent AAD. The subjects received probiotics (Lactobacilli spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Streptococcus spp., or Saccharomyces boulardii alone or in combination), placebo (fake pills), other treatments thought to prevent AAD (i.e. diosmectite or infant formula) or no treatment. The studies were short term and ranged in length from 15 days to 3 months. What is AAD and could probiotics work to prevent AAD? AAD occurs when antibiotics disturb the natural balance of "good" and "bad" bacteria in the intestinal tract causing harmful bacteria to sometimes multiply beyond their normal numbers. The symptoms of AAD may include frequent watery bowel movements and crampy abdominal pain. Probiotics are dietary supplements containing potentially beneficial bacteria or yeast. Probiotics are thought to restore the natural balance of bacteria in the intestinal tract. What did the studies show? An analysis that included only patients who completed the studies showed that probiotics may be effective for preventing AAD. However, a more conservative analysis that counted study drop‐outs as treatment failures did not show any differences between probiotic and comparison groups. How safe are probiotics? Probiotics were generally well tolerated and side effects occurred infrequently. What is the bottom line? Although current data are promising, there is insufficient evidence to routinely recommend the use of probiotics for the prevention of pediatric AAD.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,401
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,011
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,084
Tête enseignante GPT0,399
Écart entre enseignants0,315 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review JournalMême sujetClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchTravaux en français237 207