Trial reportMedicine2022
Randomized, direct comparison study of Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745 versus multi-strained Bacillus clausii probiotics for the treatment of pediatric acute gastroenteritis.
Trial report in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of probiotics for treatment of acute or persistent diarrhoea in children from birth till 10 years: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of global health · 2024Pooled it
- Probiotic Yeasts and Bacteria: A Complementary Approach to Gut Health.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Current Understanding of Probiotic Strains and Immune Function: From Gut Microbiota to Systemic Immunity.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Review
- Application of traditional Chinese medicine integrated therapy based on Tuina and herbal medicine in pediatric diarrhea.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Article
- Unique Properties of Yeast Probiotic Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2023Review
- Effect of the ProbioticVeterinary sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe choice of an appropriate probiotic for pediatric acute gastroenteritis (PAGE) can be confusing. Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of 2 probiotics (Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745 vs a 4-strain mixture of Bacillus clausii O/C, SIN, N/R, T) for the treatment of PAGE.
methodsA 2-arm parallel, randomized trial recruited children (6 months to 5 years old) with mild-moderate acute diarrhea, from 8 centers in Argentina. A total of 317 children were enrolled and blindly randomized to 5 days of either S boulardii CNCM I-745 (n = 159) or a 4-strain mixture of B clausii (n = 158), then followed for 7 days post-probiotic treatment. A stool sample was collected at inclusion for pathogen identification. The primary outcome was duration of diarrhea defined as the time from enrollment to the last loose stool followed by the first 24-hour period with stool consistency improvement. Secondary outcomes included frequency of loose stools/day, severity of diarrhea, number reporting no diarrhea at Day 6, time-to-first formed stool, recurrence of diarrhea by study end (Day 12) and safety outcomes.
resultsThree hundred twelve (98%) children completed the study. S boulardii CNCM I-745 showed a significant reduction (P = .04) in the mean duration of diarrhea (64.6 hours, 95% confidence interval [CI] 56.5-72.8) compared to those given B clausii (78.0 hours, 95% CI 69.9-86.1). Both probiotics showed improvement in secondary outcomes and were well-tolerated.
conclusionIn this study, S boulardii CNCM I-745 demonstrated better efficacy than B clausii mix for reducing the duration of pediatric acute diarrhea.
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.