ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2007
Probiotics in the management of colonic disorders.
Review in Current gastroenterology reports, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical trial: probiotic treatment of acute distal ulcerative colitis with rectally administered Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 (EcN).BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2010Trial
- Trial
- New strategies for the management of diverticular disease: insights for the clinician.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2013Article
- Expanding applications: the potential usage of 5-aminosalicylic acid in diverticular disease.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2011Review
- Diverticular disease: A therapeutic overview.World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 2010Article
- Quantitative real time PCR detection of Clostridium difficile growth inhibition by probiotic organisms.North American journal of medical sciences · 2010Article
- Irinotecan-induced mucositis manifesting as diarrhoea corresponds with an amended intestinal flora and mucin profile.International journal of experimental pathology · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Probiotics have been used in humans for almost a century and widely recommended for the treatment of a variety of ills assumed to be of colonic origin, including diarrhea, constipation, bloating, and flatulence. More recently, probiotics have been evaluated in the management of specific colonic disorders such as inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, and Clostridium difficile colitis. It is evident that no two probiotics are exactly alike; why then should we expect reproducible results from studies that employ different species or strains, variable formulations, and diverse dosing schedules? When probiotics have been studied with the rigor appropriate to a new therapeutic modality, some coherent results have emerged: specific strains are effective in certain diarrheal states, irritable bowel syndrome, ulcerative colitis, and pouchitis, as well as in the prevention of C. difficile-related colitis. Even here, not to mention other colonic disorders, further adequately powered and appropriately designed trials are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17991347What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.