ArticleBMJ open2019
Surveys of parents and clinicians concerning the minimally important difference of probiotic therapy for prevention of paediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhoea.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of a patient/proxy-reported instrument for pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea.PloS one · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo establish the minimally important difference (MID) that would prompt parents and clinicians to use probiotics for prevention of paediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD) and to obtain parent and clinician opinion about the most important outcomes in clinical trials of AAD.
methodsIn this survey, parents of children presenting to the emergency department of a Canadian tertiary care children's hospital and paediatricians working in that hospital were approached. A range of potential MIDs were presented and participants selected one that they would require to use probiotics for AAD prevention. In addition, participants were asked to rate a list of outcomes they would consider to be important in clinical trials of AAD.
resultsIn total, 127 parents and 45 paediatricians participated. About 51% (64/125) of parents and 51% (21/41) of clinicians responding to the MID question reported they would use probiotics if it reduced the risk of AAD by 39% (ie, reduce the risk of AAD from 19% to 12%). The most important outcomes to parents, in descending order, were need for hospitalisation, prevention of dehydration, disruption of normal daily activities, diarrhoea duration and physician revisit. Paediatricians considered need for hospitalisation along with physician revisit as the most important outcomes. They rated prevention of dehydration, diarrhoea duration and stool frequency as important outcomes as well.
conclusionThere is good agreement between parents and clinicians regarding how effective probiotics would need to be in preventing AAD in order to warrant use. This information, along with outcomes perceived to be most important, will help in the design of future clinical trials.
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.