Probiotics for pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antibiotic treatment is known to disturb gastrointestinal microflora, which results in a range of clinical symptoms--most notably, diarrhea. This is especially important in children, for whom antibiotics are prescribed frequently. Although meta-analyses have been conducted to evaluate the ability of probiotics to prevent antibiotic-induced diarrhea in the general population, little is known about which probiotic strains and doses might be of most benefit to children. Our objective in this study was to assess the efficacy of probiotics (of any specified strain or dose) for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea in children and to assess adverse events associated with the use of probiotics when coadministered with antibiotics to children. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed of the major electronic databases (e.g., CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED) from their inception to January 2005. We also contacted experts and searched registries and meeting abstracts for additional relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials that compared probiotic treatment with placebo or no treatment, involving pediatric subjects less than 19 years of age were included. Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria and assessed the studies for methodological quality. Data were independently extracted by 2 reviewers and analyzed via the standard Cochrane methodology. RESULTS: Six studies were included (total n = 707 patients). The combined results, analyzed with a per-protocol method that reported on the incidence of diarrhea during antibiotic treatment, showed significant benefit for the use of probiotics over placebo (relative risk [RR] 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.75, Iota2 = 70.1%). In contrast, results from intention-to-treat analysis were nonsignificant overall (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.64-1.61). Subgroup analysis on 4 studies that provided at least 5 billion single-strain colony-forming units (CFUs) daily (range 5.5-40 x 10(9) Lactobacillus GG, L. sporogens or Saccharomyces boulardii) showed strong evidence with narrow CIs for the preventative effects of probiotics for antibiotic-associated diarrhea (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.53, Iota2 = 3.5%). No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: The potential protective effects of probiotics to prevent antibiotic-associated diarrhea in children do not withstand intention-to-treat analysis. Before routine use is recommended, further studies (with limited losses of subjects to follow-up) are merited. Trials should involve those probiotic strains and doses with the most promising evidence (i.e., Lactobacillus GG, L. sporogens or S. boulardii at 5-40 x 10(9) CFUs daily).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.026 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".