Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG as a probiotic for preterm infants: a strain specific systematic review and meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG as a probiotic for preterm infants: a strain specific systematic review and meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG as a probiotic for preterm infants: a strain specific systematic review and meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG as a probiotic for preterm infants: a strain specific systematic review and meta-analysis
2024
Overview
Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) is a widely used and extensively researched probiotic. Probiotic effects are considered to be strain specific. We aimed to comprehensively assess the strain-specific effects of LGG in preterm infants. A systematic review of RCTs and non-RCTs to evaluate the effect of LGG in preterm infants. We followed the Cochrane methodology, and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews (PRISMA) statement for conducting and reporting this review. We searched the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL databases till December 2023. The review was registered in PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022324933. Meta-analysis of data from RCTs that used LGG as the sole probiotic showed significantly lower risk of NEC ≥Stage II [5 RCTs, n = 851, RR:0.50 (95% CI: 0.26, 0.93), P = 0.03] in the LGG group. There was no significant difference in the risk of LOS [7 RCTs, n = 1037, RR:1.08 (95% CI 0.84, 1.39), P = 0.55], mortality [3 RCTs, n = 207, RR: 0.99 (95% CI: 0.42, 2.33), P = 0.99], time to reach full feeds [2 RCTs, n = 19, SMD = 0.11 days (95% CI: −0.22, 0.45), P = 0.51] and duration of hospital stay [3 RCTs, n = 293, SMD: −0.14 days (95% CI: −0.37 to 0.09), P = 0.23]. Meta-analysis of data from non-RCTs showed no significant effect of LGG on NEC, LOS, and mortality. RCTs showed beneficial effects of LGG when used as the sole probiotic in reducing the risk of NEC, whereas observational studies did not. Strain-specific systematic review of LGG provides important data for guiding research and clinical practice.
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group
