Trial reportScientific reports2025
Efficacy and safety of Lactobacillus plantarum GCWB1001 for respiratory health in a double blind randomized placebo controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Respiratory diseases and the gut microbiota: an updated review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Respiratory symptoms like prolonged cough and breathlessness have increased post-COVID-19, even in those with normal chest X-rays and FEV1/FVC ratios. This study assessed the benefits of Lactobacillus plantarum GCWB1001 on such symptoms in individuals without asthma or COPD. In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, 126 participants aged 19-70 were included. Exclusions were for asthma, COPD, abnormal chest X-rays, or recent antibiotic use. The primary outcome was the Breathlessness, Cough, and Sputum Scale (BCSS), with secondary outcomes including Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores for respiratory function. The total BCSS score at 12 weeks did not differ significantly between the GCWB1001 and placebo groups. Secondary endpoints such as sputum and breathlessness showed numerical improvements, particularly in males and participants over 40, but these findings were not statistically significant after correction for multiple comparisons. No serious adverse events were reported, indicating safety. Although this study did not demonstrate a clear clinical benefit, the exploratory trends suggest that additional, larger-scale trials may be needed to determine if these observations reflect a meaningful effect.
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.