↓ Skip to main content

Effect of probiotics on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled multicenter trial

Overview of attention for article published in Intensive Care Medicine, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
137 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
232 Mendeley
Title
Effect of probiotics on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled multicenter trial
Published in
Intensive Care Medicine, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00134-016-4303-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juan Zeng, Chun-Ting Wang, Fu-Shen Zhang, Feng Qi, Shi-Fu Wang, Shuang Ma, Tie-Jun Wu, Hui Tian, Zhao-Tao Tian, Shu-Liu Zhang, Yan Qu, Lu-Yi Liu, Yuan-Zhong Li, Song Cui, He-Ling Zhao, Quan-Sheng Du, Zhuang Ma, Chun-Hua Li, Yun Li, Min Si, Yu-Feng Chu, Mei Meng, Hong-Sheng Ren, Ji-Cheng Zhang, Jin-Jiao Jiang, Min Ding, Yu-Ping Wang

Abstract

To evaluate the potential preventive effect of probiotics on ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). This was an open-label, randomized, controlled multicenter trial involving 235 critically ill adult patients who were expected to receive mechanical ventilation for ≥48 h. The patients were randomized to receive (1) a probiotics capsule containing live Bacillus subtilis and Enterococcus faecalis (Medilac-S) 0.5 g three times daily through a nasogastric feeding tube plus standard preventive strategies or (2) standard preventive strategies alone, for a maximum of 14 days. The development of VAP was evaluated daily, and throat swabs and gastric aspirate were cultured at baseline and once or twice weekly thereafter. The incidence of microbiologically confirmed VAP in the probiotics group was significantly lower than that in the control patients (36.4 vs. 50.4 %, respectively; P = 0.031). The mean time to develop VAP was significantly longer in the probiotics group than in the control group (10.4 vs. 7.5 days, respectively; P = 0.022). The proportion of patients with acquisition of gastric colonization of potentially pathogenic microorganisms (PPMOs) was lower in the probiotics group (24 %) than the control group (44 %) (P = 0.004). However, the proportion of patients with eradication PPMO colonization on both sites of the oropharynx and stomach were not significantly different between the two groups. The administration of probiotics did not result in any improvement in the incidence of clinically suspected VAP, antimicrobial consumption, duration of mechanical ventilation, mortality and length of hospital stay. Therapy with the probiotic bacteria B. Subtilis and E. faecalis are an effective and safe means for preventing VAP and the acquisition of PPMO colonization in the stomach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 232 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 232 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 14%
Researcher 31 13%
Student > Bachelor 26 11%
Other 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 42 18%
Unknown 67 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 79 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 3%
Other 22 9%
Unknown 78 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,648,713
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Intensive Care Medicine
#1,317
of 4,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,501
of 300,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Intensive Care Medicine
#14
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,360 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.