ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2020
An Oral Formulation of the Probiotic,
Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microbial Approaches to Treat and Prevent Hepatic Encephalopathy.Gastroenterology clinics of North America · 2025Review
- Engineered Probiotics for the Management of Congenital Metabolic Diseases: A Systematic Review.Preventive nutrition and food science · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHepatic encephalopathy often results in high blood ammonia levels because of inefficient ammonia processing by the liver. Lactulose treatment promotes the growth of urease-producing gut bacteria and a reduced colon pH, thus reducing blood ammonia absorption. It is thought that probiotics as an add-on therapy may be beneficial.
resultsForty patients participated (placebo, 11; probiotic, 29). Baseline characteristics were generally comparable; the mean baseline blood ammonia level was somewhat higher in the probiotic group. Mild or moderate treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported in 27.3% and 17.2% of patients in the placebo and probiotic groups, respectively; no severe TEAEs were reported. One patient (9.1%) taking placebo and two (6.9%) taking the probiotic experienced serious TEAEs (SAEs); none resulted in study discontinuation and all were considered to have no/unlikely relationship to the study product. There were no significant differences in the mean percent change (MPC) of blood ammonia levels between groups, though the probiotic group exhibited a trend toward a milder increase. Stratification of the probiotic group by baseline blood ammonia level (>60
conclusionsDaily treatment with oral
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.