↓ Skip to main content

A meta-analysis of probiotics for preventing necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm neonates

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
175 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
A meta-analysis of probiotics for preventing necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm neonates
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, August 2014
DOI 10.1590/1414-431x20143857
Pubmed ID
Authors

Y. Yang, Y. Guo, Q. Kan, X.G. Zhou, X.Y. Zhou, Y. Li

Abstract

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is one of the most common acquired diseases of the gastrointestinal tract in preterm infants. Some randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) have indicated that probiotics may potentially lower the incidence of NEC and mortality. However, debate still remains about the safety of probiotics and their influence on normal infant growth. We performed this meta-analysis to assess the safety and benefits of probiotic supplementation in preterm infants. We searched in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for English references, and in Wanfang, VIP, and CNKI databases for Chinese references. Ultimately, 27 RCTs (including 9 Chinese articles) were incorporated into this meta-analysis. Relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were calculated using a random-effects or fixed-effects model, depending on the data type and heterogeneity. A total of 6655 preterm infants, including the probiotic group (n=3298) and the placebo group (n=3357), were eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis. For Bell stage ≥I and gestational age <37 weeks, risk of NEC incidence was significantly lower in the probiotic group [RR=0.35, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.27-0.44, P<0.00001]. For Bell stage ≥II or gestational age <34 weeks, there were likewise significant differences between the probiotic and placebo groups concerning NEC incidence (RR=0.34, 95%CI=0.25-0.48, P<0.00001; and RR=0.39, 95%CI=0.27-0.56, P<0.00001). Risk of death was significantly reduced in the probiotic group (RR=0.58, 95%CI=0.46-0.75, P<0.0001). In contrast, there was no significant difference concerning the risk of sepsis (RR=0.94, 95%CI=0.83-1.06, P=0.31). With respect to weight gain and the age at which infants reached full feeds, no significant differences were found between the probiotic and placebo groups (WMD=1.07, 95%CI=-0.21-2.34, P=0.10; and WMD=-1.66, 95%CI=-3.6-0.27, P=0.09). This meta-analysis has shown that, regardless of gestational age and NEC stage, probiotic supplementation could significantly reduce the risk of NEC in preterm infants. Analysis also indicated that such supplementation did not increase the incidence risk of sepsis or of mortality. Finally, the study showed that probiotic supplementation may have no adverse effect on normal feeding and growth.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 175 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 171 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 14%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Master 19 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Student > Postgraduate 15 9%
Other 42 24%
Unknown 36 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 45 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 August 2014.
All research outputs
#20,656,820
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
#901
of 1,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,429
of 240,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research
#12
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,254 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 240,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.