Introduction
Methods
Criteria for considering studies for this review
Search methods for identification of studies
Searching other resources
Data collection and analysis
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies
Statistical analysis
Results
Results of the search
Effects of interventions
Outcome | Probiotic(s) | Trial(s) | Effect size (95% CI) |
---|---|---|---|
Treatment success |
L. casei rhamnosus Lcr35 | 2 RCTs (n = 108) (Fig. 2) | RR 2.08 (0.19 to 23.37) |
L. GG | 1 RCT (n = 84) | RR 1.06 (0.8 to 1.4) | |
B. lactis DN 173 010 | 1 RCT (n = 159) | RR 1.14 (0.91 to 1.43) | |
Defecation frequency |
L. casei rhamnosus Lcr35 | 2 RCTs (n = 108) (Fig. 3) | MD 0.16 (−4.38 to 4.69) |
L. GG | 1 RCT (n = 84) | MD −0.7 (−1.79 to 0.39) | |
L. reuteri DSM 17938 | 1 RCT (n = 44) |
P = 0.027 (data not given) | |
B. lactis DN-173 010 | 1 RCT (n = 159) | 4.5 vs. 3.9; P = 0.51 (no data were given) | |
B. longum
| 1 RCT (n = 59) |
P = 0.012 (data not given) | |
Mixture of 7 probiotics | 1 RCT (n = 48) | MD 0.54 (0.07 to 1.01) | |
Frequency of fecal incontinence |
L. casei rhamnosus Lcr35 | 2 RCTs (n = 108) (Fig. 3) | MD −0.05 (−0.63 to 0.53) |
L. GG | 1 RCT (n = 84) | MD 0.5 (−0.1 to 1.1) | |
B. lactis DN-173 010 | 1 RCT (n = 159) | 36.6% vs. 48.6%, P = 0.19 | |
Mixture of 7 probiotics | 1 RCT (n = 48, but only subset of children was evaluated) |
P = 0.125 | |
Frequency of abdominal pain |
L. casei rhamnosus Lcr35 | 2 RCTs (n = 108) (Fig. 3) | MD −2.13 (−7.12 to 2.87) |
B. longum
| 1 RCT (n = 59) |
P = 0.015 (data not given) | |
B. lactis DN-173 010 | 1 RCT (n = 159) | 58.3% vs. 54.2%, P = 0.92 | |
Mixture of 7 probiotics | 1 RCT (n = 48, but only subset of children was evaluated) |
P = 0.161 |