Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 300

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomised clinical trial: the effects of perioperative probiotic treatment on barrier function and post‐operative infectious complications in colorectal cancer surgery – a double‐blind study

Liu, Z., Qin, H., Yang, Z., Xia, Y., Liu, W., Yang, J., Jiang, Y., Zhang, H., Yang, Z., Wang, Y., Zheng, Q.·2011·Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2010.04492.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 33: 50–63 Summary: Background Infection following abdominal operation remains a major factor affecting the morbidity of patients after surgery. Aim To determine the effects of perioperative administration of probiotics on the gut barrier function and the surgical outcome in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Methods One hundred patients with colorectal carcinoma were randomly divided into the control group (n = 50) and the probiotics group (n = 50). The probiotics were given orally for 6 days preoperatively and 10 days post‐operatively. Outcomes were measured by bacterial translocation, gut permeability, the effect on the faecal microbiota, and the clinical outcomes such as infectious‐related complications and gut defecation function. Results Compared with the control group, probiotics group had increased transepithelial resistance (P < 0.05), reduced transmucosal permeation of horseradish peroxidase and lactulose/mannitol ratio, reduced bacterial translocation (P < 0.05), decreased ileal‐bile acid binding protein (P < 0.05) and positive rate of blood bacterial DNA (P < 0.05) and an enhanced mucosal tight junction protein expression. They had decreased blood enteropathogenic bacteria and increased faecal bacterial variety. The post‐operative recovery of peristalsis, incidence of diarrhoea, and infectious‐related complications were also improved. Conclusion Probiotics can improve the integrity of gut mucosal barrier by benefiting the faecal microbiota, and decreasing infectious complications in patients with colorectal cancer undergoing colorectomy.

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.1365-2036.2010.04492.x

Cites

43 of 43 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 43 references

Cited by

See all 300

Metadata

Authors
Liu, Z., Qin, H., Yang, Z., Xia, Y., Liu, W., Yang, J., Jiang, Y., Zhang, H., Yang, Z., Wang, Y., & Zheng, Q.
Venue
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-10-25
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
50-63
ISSN
  • 0269-2813 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2036
DOI
10.1111/j.1365-2036.2010.04492.x
OpenAlex
W2110214819
Cited by
300
References
43
FWCI
11.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Randomised clinical trial: the effects of perioperative probiotic treatment on barrier function and post‐operative infectious complications in colorectal cancer surgery – a double‐blind study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2010.04492.x
The paper
Liu, Z., Qin, H., Yang, Z., Xia, Y., Liu, W., Yang, J., Jiang, Y., Zhang, H., Yang, Z., Wang, Y., & Zheng, Q. (2011). Randomised clinical trial: the effects of perioperative probiotic treatment on barrier function and post‐operative infectious complications in colorectal cancer surgery – a double‐blind study. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2010.04492.x

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.