Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23282746›Full record

ArticleThe World Allergy Organization journal2010

May we strengthen the human natural defenses with bacterial lysates?

Elisa Villa, Valentina Garelli, Fulvio Braido, Giovanni Melioli, Giorgio Walter Canonica

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The World Allergy Organization journal, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Elisa VillaFrom the 1Allergy Respiratory Disease Department, Department of Internal Medicine (DiMI), University of Genova, Italy; 2Central Laboratory of Analysis, Giannina Gaslini Institute, Genoa, Italy.
Valentina Garelli
Fulvio Braido
Giovanni Melioli
Giorgio Walter Canonica

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the last twenty years bacterial lysates have gained a new interest and their use has obtained a progressively larger consensus in the medical practice. They are commonly used as immunomodulators, in order to up-regulate immune responses against infectious damages. As a matter of fact, the role of these lysate seems relevant in upper and lower respiratory tract infections prevention, frequently observed both in paediatric and elder ages, and which represent a relevant problem also in terms of socio-economical implications. The effects of bacterial lysates as immunostimulatory agents have become the central point of many studies. The aim of those in vivo and in vitro studies was to understand and evaluate the capacity of this kind of treatments to create a better answer of the immune system against microbial infections, eventually leading to a reduction in their number. All the in vivo and in vitro findings analyzed support the evidence that bacterial lysates are powerful inducers of a specific immune response against bacterial infections. Both in paediatric and adult clinical trials, a positive trend has been found in terms of overall reduction of infection rates and duration, beneficial effect on symptoms, reduction in antibiotics use and possibility to improve the patient's quality of life in several diseases. Further well-designed trials in terms of blinding and randomization procedures and including a higher number of patients, selected according to the disease and its severity, are needed.

Identifiers

PMID23282746
PMCPMC3666147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.