ArticleCureus2022
Efficacy of Probiotics in Management of Celiac Disease.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Microbial Profile Alteration as a Potential Biomarker and Therapeutic Target in Children with Celiac Disease: A Narrative Review.Pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology & nutrition · 2026Review
- An integrated nutritional and performance monitoring framework for athletes with celiac disease: A structured narrative review.Current research in food science · 2026Review
- Recent advances in therapeutic probiotics: insights from human trials.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2025Review
- Exploring the link between celiac disease and obesity: a potential role of gut microbiome.Intestinal research · 2025Article
- Coeliac disease and microbiota: is it time for personalised biotics intervention? A scoping review.BMJ nutrition, prevention & health · 2025Article
- Review
- Review
- Replacing the Burden of the Gluten Free Diet: Then, Now, and the Future.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Gut microbiota in celiac disease.Annals of gastroenterologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective The objective of this study was to interpret any rule of probiotics in the management of celiac disease and apply the results to improve the quality of life of patients with celiac disease if the result comes in favor of probiotics. Materials and methods It was a cross-sectional study conducted in the gastroenterology unit of Nishtar Medical University, Multan. A total of 170 children with celiac disease were enrolled in the study and divided into two groups (A and B) using a computer-generated table of random numbers. Group A was given only a gluten-free diet, while group B was given probiotics and a gluten-free diet. The efficacy of probiotics was measured in terms of reduction in stool frequency at the end of the 28 days of treatment. The data was recorded on the datasheet for every individual, and the statical analysis was performed using the Chi-square test. The patients were fully explained about the research purpose, and written consent was taken from them. Results The efficacy of probiotics in children with celiac disease was compared in both groups. Results showed a marked reduction in the frequency of stools to less than half, i.e., 90.59% (n=77) in group B and 63.53% (n=54) in group A. The Chi-Square test resulted in a p-value of 0.000027 showing a significant difference in both groups. Conclusion Probiotics are found to be highly efficient in terms of reduction in diarrhea in celiac disease. Probiotics will improve not only quality of life but also play an essential role in managing celiac disease.
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.