Trial reportScientific reports2022
Breast microecology improvement using probiotics following needle aspiration in patients with lactational breast abscess: a multi-center randomized double-blind controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2022. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The biological screening of aromatic medicinal plant extracts for their potentialFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 12 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although oral probiotics can improve breast microecology and alleviate the inflammatory response, there are no data regarding cases with existing abscesses. We aimed to investigate the effect of Lactobacillus fermentum CECT5716 during needle aspiration in patients with lactational breast abscesses. Patients (aged 20-41 years) with lactational single-cavity breast abscesses (diameter 3-6 cm) from 12 hospitals were randomly assigned to the experimental (n = 51) and control groups (n = 50). Outcome measures included the abscess cure rate on treatment day-5, delactation rate, relieving pain rate, and number of needle aspirations until day-28. The experimental group's 5-day cure rate (43.1%) was significantly higher (p < 0.05). Breastfeeding continuation on day-5 did not differ significantly (experimental group: 88.2%, control group: 96.0%, p = 0.269). In the experimental and control groups, 19.6% and 14.0% of patients experienced moderate to severe pain on day-5, respectively, with no statistically significant differences (p = 0.451). Four patients in each group developed diarrhea, with adverse reaction rates of 7.84% and 8.0%, respectively. No adverse reactions were reported in the infants. L. fermentum can shorten the healing time in patients with lactational breast abscesses.Trial registration This study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( http://www.chictr.org.cn ), registration number: ChiCTR2000032682, registration date: 6/May/ 2020; first entry date: 11/May/2020.
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.