SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2024
Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG as a probiotic for preterm infants: a strain specific systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Evidence, Controversies, and the Future of Biotics in the Prevention of Necrotizing Enterocolitis: A Narrative Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Dynamic Interactions between the Gut Microbiome, Health, and Metabolic Disorders in Preterm Infants.Journal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Microbiota-Modulating Strategies in Neonates Undergoing Surgery for Congenital Gastrointestinal Conditions: A Narrative Review.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) is a widely used and extensively researched probiotic. Probiotic effects are considered to be strain specific. We aimed to comprehensively assess the strain-specific effects of LGG in preterm infants. A systematic review of RCTs and non-RCTs to evaluate the effect of LGG in preterm infants. We followed the Cochrane methodology, and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews (PRISMA) statement for conducting and reporting this review. We searched the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL databases till December 2023. The review was registered in PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022324933. Meta-analysis of data from RCTs that used LGG as the sole probiotic showed significantly lower risk of NEC ≥Stage II [5 RCTs, n = 851, RR:0.50 (95% CI: 0.26, 0.93), P = 0.03] in the LGG group. There was no significant difference in the risk of LOS [7 RCTs, n = 1037, RR:1.08 (95% CI 0.84, 1.39), P = 0.55], mortality [3 RCTs, n = 207, RR: 0.99 (95% CI: 0.42, 2.33), P = 0.99], time to reach full feeds [2 RCTs, n = 19, SMD = 0.11 days (95% CI: -0.22, 0.45), P = 0.51] and duration of hospital stay [3 RCTs, n = 293, SMD: -0.14 days (95% CI: -0.37 to 0.09), P = 0.23]. Meta-analysis of data from non-RCTs showed no significant effect of LGG on NEC, LOS, and mortality. RCTs showed beneficial effects of LGG when used as the sole probiotic in reducing the risk of NEC, whereas observational studies did not. Strain-specific systematic review of LGG provides important data for guiding research and clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39060543What 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.