Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 473

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy of Lactobacillus GG in maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis

Open access
ZOCCO, M. A., DAL VERME, L. ZILERI, CREMONINI, F., PISCAGLIA, A. C., NISTA, E. C., CANDELLI, M., NOVI, M., RIGANTE, D., CAZZATO, I. A., OJETTI, V., ARMUZZI, A., GASBARRINI, G., GASBARRINI, A.·2006·Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02927.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Summary: Background: Aminosalicylates are the mainstay of therapy to prevent relapse of quiescent ulcerative colitis. The rationale for using probiotics is based on the evidence implicating intestinal bacteria in the pathogenesis of this disorder. Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of Lactobacillus GG alone or in combination with mesalazine vs. mesalazine as maintenance treatment in ulcerative colitis. Patients and methods: 187 ulcerative colitis patients with quiescent disease were randomized to receive Lactobacillus GG 18 × 10 9 viable bacteria/day (65 patients), mesalazine 2400 mg/day (60 patients) or Lactobacillus GG + mesalazine (62 patients). Disease activity index, endoscopic and histological scores were determined at 0, 6 and 12 months and in case of relapse. The primary end point was to evaluate sustained remission. Results: Overall analysis showed no difference in relapse rate at 6 (P = 0.44) and 12 months (P = 0.77) among the three treatment groups. However, the treatment with Lactobacillus GG seems to be more effective than standard treatment with mesalazine in prolonging the relapse‐free time (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Lactobacillus GG seems to be effective and safe for maintaining remission in patients with ulcerative colitis, and it could represent a good therapeutic option for preventing relapse in this group of patients.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02927.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
ZOCCO, M. A., DAL VERME, L. Z., CREMONINI, F., PISCAGLIA, A. C., NISTA, E. C., CANDELLI, M., NOVI, M., RIGANTE, D., CAZZATO, I. A., OJETTI, V., ARMUZZI, A., GASBARRINI, G., & GASBARRINI, A.
Venue
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-05-12
Volume
23
Issue
11
Pages
1567-1574
ISSN
  • 0269-2813 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2036
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.02927.x
OpenAlex
W2078745520
Cited by
473
References
1
FWCI
13.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.