ArticleBMJ open2014
Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 for managing infant colic: protocol for an individual participant data meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The therapeutic efficacy of Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BB-12Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2020Trial
- Efficacy of a mixture of simethicone and tyndallized bacillus coagulans in infant colic: a pilot study on behalf of Italian Society of Pediatrics (SIP).Italian journal of pediatrics · 2025Observational
- Infant feeding and treatment practices could lead to enhanced transmission of Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) and other orally shed infections via saliva, in rural south-western Uganda.Global public health · 2024Article
- A proof of concept infant-microbiota associated rat model for studying the role of gut microbiota and alleviation potential ofFrontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- Infantile Colic: New Insights into an Old Problem.Gastroenterology clinics of North America · 2018Review
- Comparative study of probiotic effects ofThe EPMA journal · 2017Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of pediatricians on infantile colic in the Middle East and North Africa region.BMC pediatrics · 2017Article
- A review of the systematic review process and its applicability for use in evaluating evidence for health claims on probiotic foods in the European Union.Nutrition journal · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInfant colic, or excessive crying of unknown cause in infants less than 3 months old, is common and burdensome. Its aetiology is undetermined, and consensus on its management is still lacking. Recent studies suggest a possible link between infant colic and gut microbiota, indicating probiotics to be a promising treatment. However, only a few strains have been tested, and results from randomised controlled trials are conflicting. It is important to clarify whether probiotics are effective for treating infant colic in general, and to identify whether certain subgroups of infants with colic would benefit from particular strains of probiotics. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Through an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA), we aim to identify whether the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 is effective in the management of infant colic, and to clarify whether its effects differ according to feeding method (breast vs formula vs combined), proton pump inhibitor exposure, and antibiotic exposure. The primary outcomes are infant crying duration and treatment success (at least 50% reduction in crying time from baseline) at 21 days postintervention. Individual participant data from all studies will be modelled simultaneously in multilevel generalised linear mixed-effects regression models to account for the nesting of participants within studies. Subgroup analyses of participant-level and intervention-level characteristics will be undertaken on the primary outcomes to assess if the intervention effect differs between certain groups of infants. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by the Royal Children's Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC 34081). Results will be reported in a peer-reviewed journal in 2015. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42014013210.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.