ArticleCureus2024
Use of Probiotics for Preventing Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Preterm Infants: A Survey of Current Practices Among Indian Neonatologists.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Gut dysbiosis‑derived butyrate loss predicts feeding intolerance: Multiomics evidence guiding nurse‑driven microbiota‑supportive interventions (Review).Molecular medicine reports · 2026Review
- Necrotizing Enterocolitis: A Comprehensive Review on Toll-like Receptor 4-Mediated Pathophysiology, Clinical, and Therapeutic Insights.Biomedicines · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveProbiotics are known to reduce the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC≥ Stage II) significantly, as well as all-cause mortality, late-onset sepsis (LOS), and feeding intolerance in preterm infants. Probiotics have been reported to have comparable benefits in high- and low-middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to assess the current practices of neonatologists in India for using probiotics in preterm infants. MATERIAL AND
methodsA questionnaire created using Survey Monkey's web-based tool was sent to neonatologists in India. Survey forms automatically converted responses into Excel files (Microsoft® Corp., Redmond, WA). Data were analyzed using SPSS (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).
resultsA total of 615 responses were received from various neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in India (Level I: 43 (7%), II: 124 (20.8%), III: 448 (72.8%)). Around 431 (70%) of the units had either National Neonatology Forum (NNF) accreditation or IAP fellowships or were affiliated with private or government medical colleges. The remaining 184 (30%) were in private setups. Routine probiotic supplementation (RPS) was provided in 241 (39.1%) of the responding units; 179 (48%) quoted inadequate evidence as the reason for not providing RPS, 125 (33.43%) quoted difficulty in sourcing safe and effective products, whereas others were concerned about adverse effects. Most centers provided RPS for preterm infants <32 weeks and 1500 g at birth. The clinical practice was influenced by the judgment of the attending clinician. Significant variation was noticed in the protocol for RPS.
conclusionFindings of the survey suggest that approximately 39% of the participating neonatologists in India currently offer RPS for preterm infants. A significant variation exists in the selection of probiotic strains, products, dose, and duration of supplementation. Despite limitations, our findings are useful in guiding clinical practice and further research to optimize the safety and efficacy of RPS for preterm infants.
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.