Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31706331›Full record

Trial reportItalian journal of pediatrics2019

Effects of Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 in preterm infants: a double-blinded randomized controlled study.

Xuewei Cui, Yongyan Shi, Siyang Gao, Xindong Xue, Jianhua Fu

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Italian journal of pediatrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Effects ofCell reports. Medicine · 2021
    Trial
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Determinants of microbial colonization in the premature gut.Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2023
    Review
  17. Microorganisms · 2021
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Emerging therapeutic targets for sepsis.Expert opinion on therapeutic targets · 2021
    Review
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xuewei CuiDepartment of Neonatology, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Yongyan ShiDepartment of Neonatology, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Siyang GaoDepartment of Neonatology, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Xindong XueDepartment of Neonatology, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China.
Jianhua FuDepartment of Neonatology, Shengjing Hospital, China Medical University, Shenyang, China. fujh@sj-hospital.org.
China Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreterm infants have immature gastrointestinal tracts and poor immunity. In this study, the effects of Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 first on early feeding tolerance, growth, and second on infection prevention in preterm infants were evaluated.

methodsOne hundred fourteen formula-fed preterm infants with a gestational age between 30 weeks and 37 weeks, and a birth weight between 1500 and 2000 g were enrolled; 57 in the intervention and 57 in the control group:the intervention group was given a dose of 1 × 10

resultsThe number of Daily reflux episodes (times/d) was lower (2.18 ± 0.83 vs. 3.77 ± 0.66, P < 0.01) and time to full enteral feedings (120 mL/kg/d) (9.95 ± 2.46 d vs. 13.80 ± 3.47 d, P < 0.05) was shorter in the intervention group. Average daily weight gain (14.55 ± 3.07 g/d vs. 10.12 ± 2.80 g/d), head circumference increas e(0.0760 ± 0.0157 cm/d vs. 0.0681 ± 0.0108 cm/d), and body length increase (0.1878 ± 0.0151 cm/d vs. 0.1756 ± 0.0166 cm/d) of the intervention group were higher (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in the incidences of sepsis (4.44% vs. 8.33%), localized infection (6.67% vs. 8.33%), or NEC (2.22% vs. 10.42%) between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). The number of daily defecations (times/d) in the intervention group was higher (3.08 ± 0.33 vs. 2.29 ± 0.20, P < 0.01) and the length of hospital stay was shorter than that in the control group (20.60 ± 5.36 d vs. 23.75 ± 8.57 d, P < 0.05). No adverse effects were noted among the infants receiving L. reuteri.

conclusionL. reuteri may be an useful tool in improving early feeding tolerance in preterm infants, promoting growth, increasing the frequency of defecation, and shortening the length of hospital stay.

trial registrationChiCTR, ChiCTR1900025590. Registered 1 February 2019- Retrospectively registered, http://www.chictr.org.cn/listbycreater.aspx.

Indexed as

Infant Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaLimosilactobacillus reuteriChild DevelopmentDefecationDouble-Blind MethodFemaleGestational AgeHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureLength of StayMaleProbioticsFeeding toleranceGrowthInfection preventionLactobacillus reuteriPreterm infant

Identifiers

PMID31706331
PMCPMC6842458
OpenAlexW2988636563

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.