↓ Skip to main content

Probiotics for prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants: systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Italian Journal of Pediatrics, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
198 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 prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis in preterm infants: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Italian Journal of Pediatrics, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13052-015-0199-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arianna Aceti, Davide Gori, Giovanni Barone, Maria Luisa Callegari, Antonio Di Mauro, Maria Pia Fantini, Flavia Indrio, Luca Maggio, Fabio Meneghin, Lorenzo Morelli, Gianvincenzo Zuccotti, Luigi Corvaglia, on behalf of the Italian Society of Neonatology

Abstract

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) affects predominantly preterm infants, who have specific risk factors leading to intestinal dysbiosis. Manipulations of gut microbiota through probiotics have the potential to prevent NEC.The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of probiotics for NEC prevention in preterm infants, with a focus on specific strains, microbiological strength of currently available studies, and high-risk populations.PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for trials published within 4th February 2015. Randomized-controlled trials reporting on NEC and involving preterm infants who were given probiotics in the first month of life were included in the systematic review.Twenty-six studies were suitable for inclusion in the meta-analysis.Data about study design, population, intervention and outcome were extracted and summarized independently by two observers. Study quality and quality of evidence were also evaluated.Fixed-effects models were used and random-effects models where significant heterogeneity was present. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity among studies. Results were expresses as risk ratio (RR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI).The main outcome was incidence of NEC stage ≥2 according to Bell's criteria.Probiotics prevented NEC in preterm infants (RR 0.47 [95 % CI 0.36-0.60], p < 0.00001). Strain-specific sub-meta-analyses showed a significant effect for Bifidobacteria (RR 0.24 [95 % CI 0.10-0.54], p = 0.0006) and for probiotic mixtures (RR 0.39 [95 % CI 0.27-0.56], p < 0.00001). Probiotics prevented NEC in very-low-birth-weight infants (RR 0.48 [95 % CI 0.37-0.62], p < 0.00001); there were insufficient data for extremely-low-birth-weight infants. The majority of studies presented severe or moderate microbiological flaws.Probiotics had an overall preventive effect on NEC in preterm infants. However, there are still insufficient data on the specific probiotic strain to be used and on the effect of probiotics in high-risk populations such as extremely-low-birth-weight infants, before a widespread use of these products can be recommended.

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 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Unknown 195 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 14%
Student > Bachelor 27 14%
Researcher 25 13%
Other 14 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 7%
Other 48 24%
Unknown 43 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 4%
Other 18 9%
Unknown 51 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 16 July 2020.
All research outputs
#7,960,512
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Italian Journal of Pediatrics
#300
of 1,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,697
of 292,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Italian Journal of Pediatrics
#4
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,059 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 292,413 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.