Effectiveness of probiotics in infantile colic: A rapid review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Infantile colic (IC) is a troubling condition with limited treatment options for young infants. This rapid review aims to synthesize the evidence for probiotics in the treatment and prevention of IC in healthy term infants. METHODS: We searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews (SRs), and randomized control trials (RCTs) published between January 1, 2000 and July 11, 2018. Trials were included if they recruited healthy full-term infants who received probiotics for treatment or prevention of colic. The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. As supplementary information, the safety of probiotics in infants was searched within the reviewed studies and other recent publications. RESULTS: was used in the majority (five of eight) of treatment trials, and was found to significantly reduce crying in colicky breast-fed infants compared to placebo. Only two of the six prevention trials showed a significant decrease in crying time compared to placebo, although another two trials showed other benefits of probiotics, including reduced use of medications (simethicone and cimetropium bromide) and physician visits. No adverse events were identified in the included studies; other research suggests probiotics are generally safe in healthy children. CONCLUSION: This rapid review identified limited but favourable evidence of benefit of using probiotics for the treatment of IC in full-term breast-fed infants. While routine use of probiotics for treating or preventing IC cannot yet be recommended, it can be an option to manage IC.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".