Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 283

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

No effects of probiotics on atopic dermatitis in infancy: a randomized placebo‐controlled trial

Open access
Brouwer, M. L., Wolt‐Plompen, S. A. A., Dubois, A. E. J., Van Der Heide, S., Jansen, D. F., Hoijer, M. A., Kauffman, H. F., Duiverman, E. J.·2006·Clinical & Experimental Allergy

Abstract

Summary: Background Studies have been performed suggesting that administration of probiotics may have therapeutic and/or preventive benefits in the development of sensitization and atopic disease, particularly in infants with atopic dermatitis (AD). Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and immunological effects of supplementation of a hydrolysed formula with two probiotic strains of bacteria on symptoms of AD in infancy. Methods We conducted a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. After 4–6 weeks of baseline and double‐blind, placebo‐controlled challenges for diagnosis of cow's milk allergy (CMA), infants less than 5 months old with AD received a hydrolysed whey‐based formula as placebo (n=17), or supplemented with either Lactobacillus rhamnosus (n=17) or Lactobacillus GG (n=16) for 3 months. Before, during and after intervention, the clinical severity of AD was evaluated using SCORing index Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD). Allergic sensitization was evaluated by measurement of total IgE and a panel of food‐specific IgEs as well as skin prick testing for cow's milk. Inflammatory parameters were blood eosinophils, eosinophil protein X in urine, fecal α‐1‐antitrypsin and production of IL‐4, IL‐5 and IFN‐γ by peripheral blood mononuclear cells after polyclonal stimulation. Results No statistically significant effects of probiotic supplementation on SCORAD, sensitization, inflammatory parameters or cytokine production between groups were found. Only four infants were diagnosed with CMA. Conclusion We found no clinical or immunological effect of the probiotic bacteria used in infants with AD. Our results indicate that oral supplementation with these probiotic bacterial strains will not have a significant impact on the symptoms of infantile AD.

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.1365-2222.2006.02513.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

See all 283

Metadata

Authors
Brouwer, M. L., Wolt‐Plompen, S. A. A., Dubois, A. E. J., Van Der Heide, S., Jansen, D. F., Hoijer, M. A., Kauffman, H. F., & Duiverman, E. J.
Venue
Clinical & Experimental Allergy
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-06-27
Volume
36
Issue
7
Pages
899-906
ISSN
  • 0954-7894 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2222
OpenAlex
W2145574323
Cited by
283
References
1
FWCI
53.03
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

How to cite

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

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: No effects of probiotics on atopic dermatitis in infancy: a randomized placebo‐controlled trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2222.2006.02513.x
The paper
Brouwer, M. L., Wolt‐Plompen, S. A. A., Dubois, A. E. J., Van Der Heide, S., Jansen, D. F., Hoijer, M. A., Kauffman, H. F., & Duiverman, E. J. (2006). No effects of probiotics on atopic dermatitis in infancy: a randomized placebo‐controlled trial. Clinical & Experimental Allergy. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2222.2006.02513.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.