IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0141445.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Efficacy and Safety of the Probiotic Bacterium Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 for Infantile Colic: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Man Xu
  • Jiao Wang
  • Ning Wang
  • Fei Sun
  • Lin Wang
  • Xiao-Hong Liu

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 for treating infantile colic. Methods: A systematic literature retrieval was carried out to obtain randomized controlled trials of L. reuteri DSM 17938 for infantile colic. Trials were performed before May 2015 and retrieved from the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, CNKI, WanFang, VIP, and CBM databases. Data extraction and quality evaluation of the trials were performed independently by two investigators. A meta-analysis was performed using STATA version 12.0. Results: Six randomized controlled trials of 423 infants with colic were included. Of these subjects, 213 were in the L. reuteri group, and 210 were in the placebo group. Lactobacillus reuteri increased colic treatment effectiveness at two weeks (RR = 2.84; 95% CI: 1.24–6.50; p = 0.014) and three weeks (relative risk [RR] = 2.33; 95% CI: 1.38–3.93; P = 0.002) but not at four weeks (RR = 1.41; 95% CI: 0.52–3.82; P = 0.498). Lactobacillus reuteri decreased crying time (min/d) at two weeks (weighted mean difference [WMD] = –42.89; 95% CI: –60.50 to –25.29; P = 0.000) and three weeks (WMD = –45.83; 95% CI: –59.45 to –32.21; P = 0.000). In addition, L. reuteri did not influence infants’ weight, length or head circumference and was not associated with serious adverse events. Conclusions: Lactobacillus reuteri possibly increased the effectiveness of treatment for infantile colic and decreased crying time at two to three weeks without causing adverse events. However, these protective roles are usurped by gradual physiological improvements. The study is limited by the heterogeneity of the trials and should be considered with caution. Higher quality, multicenter randomized controlled trials with larger samples are needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Man Xu & Jiao Wang & Ning Wang & Fei Sun & Lin Wang & Xiao-Hong Liu, 2015. "The Efficacy and Safety of the Probiotic Bacterium Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 for Infantile Colic: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-16, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0141445
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141445
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141445
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141445&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0141445?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan Roos & Johan Dicksved & Valentina Tarasco & Emanuela Locatelli & Fulvio Ricceri & Ulf Grandin & Francesco Savino, 2013. "454 Pyrosequencing Analysis on Faecal Samples from a Randomized DBPC Trial of Colicky Infants Treated with Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-5, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Åsa Vilson & Ziad Ramadan & Qinghong Li & Åke Hedhammar & Arleigh Reynolds & Julie Spears & Jeff Labuda & Robyn Pelker & Bengt Björkstén & Johan Dicksved & Helene Hansson-Hamlin, 2018. "Disentangling factors that shape the gut microbiota in German Shepherd dogs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0141445. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.