Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24678479›Full record

ArticleNorth American journal of medical sciences2014

Role of Enteric Supplementation of Probiotics on Late-onset Sepsis by Candida species in Preterm Low Birth Weight Neonates: A Randomized, Double Blind, Placebo-controlled Trial.

Amrita Roy, Jasodhara Chaudhuri, Debalina Sarkar, Pramit Ghosh, Swapna Chakraborty

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in North American journal of medical sciences, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 22 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 22 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 22 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 94 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. [Efficacy of probiotics in preventing late-onset sepsis in very low birth weight infants: a Meta analysis].Zhongguo dang dai er ke za zhi = Chinese journal of contemporary pediatrics · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Guideline
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amrita RoyDepartment of Paediatrics, Medical College and Hospitals, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Jasodhara ChaudhuriDepartment of Paediatrics, Medical College and Hospitals, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Debalina SarkarDepartment of Paediatrics, Medical College and Hospitals, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Pramit GhoshDepartment of Paediatrics, Medical College and Hospitals, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Swapna ChakrabortyDepartment of Paediatrics, Medical College and Hospitals, Kolkata, West Bengal, India.
Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increase in invasive fungal infections (IFIs) in neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) is jeopardizing the survival of preterm neonates. Probiotics modulating the intestinal microflora of preterm neonates may minimize enteral fungal colonization.

aimsThis study was to examine whether probiotic supplementation in neonates reduced fungal septicemia. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis prospective, randomized, double blind trial investigating the supplementation of preterm infants with a probiotic was done from May 2012 to April 2013, with 112 subjects randomized into two groups. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Decreased fungal colonization in gastrointestinal tract. Others: Incidence of late onset septicemia; duration of the primary hospital admission; number of days until full enteral feeds established.

resultsFull feed establishment was earlier in probiotics group compared to placebo group (P = 0.016). The duration of hospitalization was less in the probiotic group (P = 0.002). Stool fungal colonization, an important outcome parameter was 3.03 ± 2.33 × 10(5) colony formation units (CFU) in the probiotics group compared to 3 ± 1.5 × 10(5) CFU in the placebo group (P = 0.03). Fungal infection is less in the study group (P = 0.001).

conclusionThe key features of our study were reduced enteral fungal colonization, reduce invasive fungal sepsis, earlier establishment of full enteral feeds, and reduced duration of hospital stay in the probiotics group.

Indexed as

Fungalneonatespretermprobioticssepsis

Identifiers

PMID24678479
PMCPMC3938875
OpenAlexW2141836478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.