Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25416927›Full record

Trial reportMedical microbiology and immunology2015

Influence of a probiotic Lactobacillus casei strain on the colonisation with potential pathogenic streptococci and Staphylococcus aureus in the nasopharyngeal space of healthy men with a low baseline NK cell activity.

Charles M A P Franz, Melanie Huch, Stephanie Seifert, Jeannette Kramlich, Achim Bub, Gyu-Sung Cho, Bernhard Watzl

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical microbiology and immunology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Effects of a probiotic drink containingThe Journal of international medical research · 2019
    Article
  4. Review of probiotic use in otolaryngology.American journal of otolaryngology
    Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Charles M A P FranzDepartment of Safety and Quality of Fruit and Vegetables, Max Rubner-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Nutrition and Food, Haid-und-Neu-Straße 9, 76131, Karlsruhe, Germany, Charles.Franz@mri.bund.de.
Melanie Huch
Stephanie Seifert
Jeannette Kramlich
Achim Bub
Gyu-Sung Cho
Bernhard Watzl
Max Rubner Institut · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The effect of a daily intake of the probiotic strain Lactobacillus casei Shirota (LcS) on the colonisation of pathogens, specifically streptococci and Staphylococcus aureus, in the nose and throat of healthy human volunteers with low natural killer cell activity, was investigated in a randomised and controlled intervention study. The study consisted of a 2-week run-in phase, followed by a 4-week intervention phase. The probiotic treatment group received a fermented milk drink with LcS, while the placebo group received an equally composed milk drink without the probiotic additive. To isolate potential pathogenic streptococci and Staph. aureus, samples from the pharynx, as well as of both middle nasal meati, were taken, once after the run-in phase and once at the end of the intervention phase. Isolated bacteria were identified as either Staph. aureus and α- or β-haemolytic streptococci in a polyphasic taxonomical approach based on phenotypic tests, amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis genotyping, and 16S rRNA gene sequencing of representative strains. Salivary secretory immunoglobulin A (SIgA) was used as marker of protective mucosal immunity to evaluate whether LcS treatment influenced SIgA production. No statistically significant effect could be determined for intervention with LcS on the incidence of Staph. aureus in the nasal space, Staph. aureus in the pharyngeal space or for β-haemolytic streptococci and Streptococcus pneumoniae in the pharyngeal space. Thus, the intervention did not influence the nasopharyngeal colonisation with Gram-positive potential pathogens. Production of salivary SIgA as a potential means of microbiota modulation was also not affected.

Indexed as

Healthy VolunteersAdolescentAdultBacteriological TechniquesDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalHumansImmunoglobulin A, SecretoryKiller Cells, NaturalLacticaseibacillus caseiMaleMiddle AgedNasopharynxPlacebosProbioticsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalImmunoglobulin A, SecretoryPlacebosRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID25416927
OpenAlexW2008774126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.