Cited by 147Gastrointestinal motility and disordersProbiotics and Fermented FoodsGut microbiota and health

Randomised clinical trial: a liquid multi‐strain probiotic vs. placebo in the irritable bowel syndrome – a 12 week double‐blind study

Open access
Sisson, G., Ayis, S., Sherwood, R. A., Bjarnason, I.·2014·Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics

Abstract

Summary: Background: The importance of interactions between the host and gut microbiota in the pathogenesis of irritable bowel syndrome ( IBS ) is becoming increasingly apparent. Probiotics offer a potential new treatment for IBS , but current results are conflicting, largely as a result of poorly designed trials and nonstandardisation of outcome measures. Aim: To assess the efficacy of a liquid, multi‐strain probiotic (Symprove) in IBS . Methods: A single‐centre, randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial of adult patients with symptomatic IBS . Patients received 12 weeks of treatment with the probiotic or placebo (1 mL/kg/day). The primary efficacy measure was the difference in change in the IBS symptom severity score ( IBS ‐ SSS ) between probiotic vs. placebo at week 12. Secondary outcome measures included change in the IBS quality of life ( IBS ‐ QOL ) score and change in the IBS ‐ SSS symptom component scores. Results: A total of 186 patients were randomised and 152 patients completed the study. The mean change in IBS ‐ SSS was −63.3 probiotic vs. −28.3 placebo. The mean difference in the IBS ‐ SSS was statistically significant [−35.0 (95% CI ; −62.03, −7.87); P = 0.01]. There was no significant improvement in the IBS ‐ QOL . No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: The multi‐strain probiotic was associated with a statistically significant improvement in overall symptom severity in patients with IBS , and was well tolerated. These results suggest this probiotic confers benefit in IBS and deserves further investigation (ISRCTN identifier: 77512412).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/apt.12787

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 45 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sisson, G., Ayis, S., Sherwood, R. A., & Bjarnason, I.
Affiliations
  • Darent Valley Hospital (GB)
  • King's College Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Sisson, G.
Venue
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-05-11
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
51-62
ISSN
  • 0269-2813 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2036
OpenAlex
W2080104941
Cited by
147
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 5
FWCI
10.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
Keywords
irritable bowel syndrome, probiotics, multi-strain probiotics, IBS symptom severity, IBS quality of life, gut microbiota, probiotic efficacy, placebo comparison
MeSH terms
Adult, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Quality of Life, Severity of Illness Index, Treatment Outcome, Probiotics, Irritable Bowel Syndrome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review