↓ Skip to main content

Probiotics for treating eczema

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
154 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
202 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Probiotics for treating eczema
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2008
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006135.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert John Boyle, Fiona J Bath‐Hextall, Jo Leonardi‐Bee, Dedee F Murrell, Mimi LK Tang

Abstract

Probiotics have been proposed as an effective treatment for eczema, and recently a number of clinical trials have been undertaken. To assess the effects of probiotics for the treatment of eczema We searched the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register (to April 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 2,2008) MEDLINE (from 2003 to April 2008), EMBASE (from 2005 to April 2008), PsycINFO, AMED and LILACS (from inception to April 2008) and ISI Web of Science (to December 2006) and reference lists of articles. We also searched registries of ongoing clinical trials, conference proceedings and searched for adverse events. Randomised controlled trials of live orally ingested microorganisms for the treatment of eczema. Two authors independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed the quality of trials and extracted data. We contacted study authors for more information where necessary. We recorded adverse events from the included studies, and from the separate adverse events search. Twelve randomised controlled trials involving 781 participants met the inclusion criteria. All trial participants were children. There was no significant difference in participant or parent-rated symptom scores in favour of probiotic treatment (5 trials, 313 participants). Symptom severity on a scale from 0 to 20 was 0.90 points lower after probiotic treatment than after placebo (95%CI -1.04, 2.84; p = 0.36).There was also no significant difference in participant or parent-rated overall eczema severity in favour of probiotic treatment (3 trials, 150 participants). There was no significant difference in investigator rated eczema severity between probiotic and placebo treatments (7 trials, 588 participants). On a scale from 0 to 102 investigator rated eczema severity was 2.46 points lower after probiotic treatment than after placebo treatment (95%CI -2.53, 7.45 p = 0.33). Significant heterogeneity was noted between the results of individual studies, which may be explained by the use of different probiotic strains. Subgroup analysis by age of participant, severity of eczema, presence of atopy or presence of food allergy did not identify a population with different treatment outcomes to the population as a whole. The adverse events search identified some case reports of infections and bowel ischaemia caused by probiotics. The evidence suggests that probiotics are not an effective treatment for eczema, and probiotic treatment carries a small risk of adverse events.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 194 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 45 22%
Researcher 36 18%
Student > Master 26 13%
Other 17 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 7%
Other 30 15%
Unknown 33 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Other 32 16%
Unknown 34 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 05 December 2023.
All research outputs
#698,126
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,300
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,442
of 102,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 102,740 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.