Beliefs and Practices of Canadian and U.S. Physicians Regarding the Use of Probiotics for Gastrointestinal Illnesses
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Despite the popularity of probiotics with patients, little is known about their utilization and knowledge among Gastroenterologists (GIs) and Family Physicians (FPs). The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) developed a needs assessment (NA) to determine utilization and knowledge patterns. Methods: A NA was developed based on the expert opinions and emailed to the members of the CAG, the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), and other networks of FPs in the US and CAN. Results: A total of 276 physicians, ˜50% from US and CAN, responded to the NA. Respondents were mainly adult GIs (68%), from all “stages of career”, mostly male and from community/private setting, residing in large cities. Most physicians recommend probiotics to their patients (92%-CAN, 85%-US). The top reason for not recommending probiotics was lack of clinical evidence. Among physicians recommending probiotics, a given probiotic was selected based on clinical evidence of efficacy (70%-CAN; 56%-US), or because of a specific strain (44%-CAN; 48%-US). Top information sources were scientific/clinical literatureand clinical guidelines. Choice of a probiotic was determined mostly by clinical data (89%-CAN; 90%-US), followed by cost of probiotics, their stability, manufacturer credibility and manufacturing quality. Probiotics were most commonly recommended for Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS; 77%-CAN; 58%-US), followed by diarrhea (53%-CAN; 46%-US), pouchitis (33%-CAN; 38%-US), and constipation/ulcerative colitis (UC)/dyspepsia (all 5-16%). The actual use of probiotics in patients with specific diseases differed slightly between CAN and US (Table 1). Pills/capsules were the most recommended form of probiotic, mostly containing mixture of bacterial species, followed by Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus.Rationale for recommending probiotics was based equally on personal belief in benefit and scientific evidence; the key exceptions being pouchitis followed by UC, where scientific evidence prevailed. Doctors felt that marketing had little impact (0-6% of all physicians). While most physicians felt fairly or very well informed (53%-CAN; 67%-US), a significant proportion of respondents (30%-CAN, 22%-US) were only somewhat informed. Conclusion: Probiotics are used commonly among GIs and FPs in CAN and US, mainly to treat functional GI disorders. However, knowledge of clinical data and scientific evidence for use of probiotics is discrepant among physicians in both countries.432 Figure 1. n=number of physicians who recommend probiotics for that indication; All results expressed in %.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».