ArticleTranslational pediatrics2024
The effectiveness of
Article in Translational pediatrics, 2024. 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.
- Probiotic Yeasts and Bacteria: A Complementary Approach to Gut Health.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Acupuncture for the treatment of infantile colic.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Infantile colic is common in pediatric patients, yet few probiotics effectively treat this condition. The efficacy of Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science databases from their inception until January 2024. We used Version 2 of the Cochrane tool (ROB 2) to assess the risk of bias in randomized trials. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 software. The inclusion criteria followed the PICOS framework: (I) participants: infants with colic; (II) intervention: LGG administration at any dose; (III) control: placebo or no treatment; (IV) outcomes: primary outcome was crying or fussing time (minutes/day) at the end of the intervention, secondary outcomes included fecal calprotectin content (µg/g) and adverse events; (V) Study type: randomized controlled trials. Results: Four studies involving 168 infants with colic were included. The meta-analysis indicated that LGG significantly reduced daily crying time [mean difference (MD) =-32.59 minutes; 95% confidence interval (CI): -43.23 to -21.96; P<0.001] and fecal calprotectin content (MD =-103.28 µg/g; 95% CI: -149.30 to -7.26; P<0.001). Only one study reported adverse events. Conclusions: LGG is effective in treating infantile colic. Further studies are needed to examine the effects of different doses, administration schedules, and durations of LGG treatment in infants with varying feeding methods.
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.