Trial reportBMC pediatrics2026
Lactobacillus acidophilus for infant colic and microbiota modulation: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC pediatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundInfantile colic affects up to 25% of infants during the early weeks of life. Dysbiosis plays a prominent role in its pathogenesis, supporting the potential therapeutic role of probiotics. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM versus placebo in infant colic and microbiota modulation.
methodsA double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial was conducted with 60 infants with colic, randomly assigned to receive five drops of L. acidophilus NCFM (1 × 109 CFU) or placebo for 28 days. Data on responders (subjects with a colicky full-force crying/fussing time reduction of ≥ 50% from baseline), daily fussing and crying time, adverse effects, and maternal and child characteristics were collected. Changes in gut microbiota and fecal calprotectin were also evaluated. The study was registered at ensaiosclinicos.gov.br (RBR-5pp4nks).
resultsThe primary endpoint (proportion of responders at Day 28) was not significantly different between groups (p = 0.240). A higher responder rate was observed in the intervention group at Day 14 in exploratory analyses (p = 0.045); however, this result was attenuated after correction for multiple comparisons. No statistical difference was observed in calprotectin concentration (p = 0.687), infant mood (p = 0.720), fussing and crying time (p = 0.524). A higher diversity was observed in the breastfed and formula-fed groups utilizing probiotics, but not in the formula-fed group receiving placebo. A high relative abundance of Akkermansia was identified in the probiotic group. Ruminococcus was identified in both groups before and after the intervention.
conclusionsIntervention did not significantly improve the proportion of responders at Day 28, the primary endpoint. An apparent benefit at Day 14 emerged in secondary. The use of L. acidophilus NCFM was able to improve some aspects of infants’ intestinal microbiota. Also, there was no statistical difference in calprotectin and infant mood. The use of L. acidophilus NCFM was safe for this population. CLINICAL
trial registrationThe study was registered at ensaiosclinicos.gov.br (RBR-5pp4nks), retrospectively registered at 09/09/2023.
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.