Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30865287›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2019

Probiotics to prevent infantile colic.

Teck Guan Ong, Morris Gordon, Shel Sc Banks, Megan R Thomas, Anthony K Akobeng

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06197100 (Effectiveness of Supportive Care Training Given to Mothers of Babies With Infant Colic), which is not on this map. Cited by 46 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
24.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT06197100 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Effectiveness of Supportive Care Training Given to Mothers of Babies With Infant Colic: Randomized Controlled Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorKirsehir Ahi Evran UniversitesiRan2024 to 2024Enrolled60ConditionsMothers, Infantile ColicArmsSupportive care training, control grups
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Probiotics for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Probiotics for maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Parent training programmes for managing infantile colic.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  8. Probiotics to prevent infantile colic.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. The Gut in Early Life-Postnatal Challenges.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. The Efficacy of the Administration ofAdvanced biomedical research · 2026
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Teck Guan OngChild Health Department, Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Whinney Heys Road, Blackpool, Lancashire, UK, FY3 8NR.
Morris Gordon
Shel Sc Banks
Megan R Thomas
Anthony K Akobeng
Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBWeill Cornell Medical College in Qatar · QA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInfantile colic is typically defined as full-force crying for at least three hours per day, on at least three days per week, for at least three weeks. Infantile colic affects a large number of infants and their families worldwide. Its symptoms are broad and general, and while not indicative of disease, may represent a serious underlying condition in a small percentage of infants who may need a medical assessment. Probiotics are live microorganisms that alter the microflora of the host and provide beneficial health effects. The most common probiotics used are of Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium and Streptococcus. There is growing evidence to suggest that intestinal flora in colicky infants differ from those in healthy infants, and it is suggested that probiotics can redress this balance and provide a healthier intestinal microbiota landscape. The low cost and easy availability of probiotics makes them a potential prophylactic solution to reduce the incidence and prevalence of infantile colic.

objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of prophylactic probiotics in preventing or reducing severity of infantile colic. SEARCH

methodsIn January 2018 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 10 other databases and two trials registers. In addition, we handsearched the abstracts of relevant meetings, searched reference lists, ran citation searches of included studies, and contacted authors and experts in the field, including the manufacturers of probiotics, to identify unpublished trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised control trials (RCTs) of newborn infants less than one month of age without the diagnosis of infantile colic at recruitment. We included any probiotic, alone or in combination with a prebiotic (also known as synbiotics), versus no intervention, another intervention(s) or placebo, where the focus of the study was the effect of the intervention on infantile colic. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane. MAIN

resultsOur search yielded 3284 records, and of these, we selected 21 reports for full-text review. Six studies with 1886 participants met our inclusion criteria, comparing probiotics with placebo. Two studies examined Lactobacillus reuteri DSM, two examined multi-strain probiotics, one examined Lactobacillus rhamnosus, and one examined Lactobacillus paracasei and Bifidobacterium animalis. Two studies began probiotics during pregnancy and continued administering them to the baby after birth.We considered the risk of bias for randomisation as low for all six trials; for allocation concealment as low in two studies and unclear in four others. All studies were blinded, and at low risk of attrition and reporting bias.A random-effects meta-analysis of three studies (1148 participants) found no difference between the groups in relation to occurrence of new cases of colic: risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 1.19; low-certainty evidence; I AUTHORS'

conclusionsThere is no clear evidence that probiotics are more effective than placebo at preventing infantile colic; however, daily crying time appeared to reduce with probiotic use compared to placebo. There were no clear differences in adverse effects.We are limited in our ability to draw conclusions by the certainty of the evidence, which we assessed as being low across all three outcomes, meaning that we are not confident that these results would not change with the addition of further research.

Indexed as

BifidobacteriumBreast FeedingColicCryingFemaleGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansInfantInfant, NewbornLimosilactobacillus reuteriPrebioticsPregnancyProbioticsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime FactorsPrebiotics

Identifiers

PMID30865287
PMCPMC6415699
OpenAlexW2763758526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.