Cited by 146Infant Health and DevelopmentGut microbiota and healthInfant Nutrition and Health

Intestinal microflora in breastfed colicky and non-colicky infants

Savino, F, Cresi, F, Pautasso, S, Palumeri, E, Tullio, V, Roana, J, Silvestro, L, Oggero, R·2004·Acta Paediatrica

Abstract

Background: Infantile colics are a common problem in the first months of life. During this period, a process of intestinal colonization rapidly occurs. A difference in the gut microflora could play an important role in the pathogenesis of colics, changing the metabolism of carbohydrates and fatty acids. Actually, in the literature, only few data have been collected about this topic. In this study, we evaluated intestinal microflora in breastfed colicky and non‐colicky infants. Methods: Seventy‐one breastfed infants, aged 3.2 ± 0.6 wk, free from episodes of gastroenteritis and without previous assumption of antibiotic and probiotic drugs, were enrolled in the study. They were divided into two groups: colicky (42 cases) and non‐colicky (29 cases), according to Wessel's criteria. Stool samples were collected, diluted and cultured on several selective media to detect lactobacilli, clostridia, Gram‐negative anaerobes and Enterobacteriaceae. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t‐test, χ 2 test and a non‐parametric test (Mann‐Whitney U‐test). Results: Differences in gut microflora were found among colicky and non‐colicky infants: colicky infants were less frequently colonized by Lactobacillus spp., and more frequently by anaerobic Gram‐negative bacteria. Conclusion: Our study indicates that colicky infants have different patterns of gut microflora. Further studies are required to understand whether gut microflora is the primary cause of colics or its consequence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2004.tb03025.x

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Early culture-based studies found that colicky infants more often carried anaerobic gram-negative proinflammatory bacteria and less often lactobacilli than infants without colic.

    “Early culture-dependent studies by Savino et al. revealed that colicky infants were more frequently colonized by anaerobic gram-negative proinflammatory bacteria and less frequently colonized by lactobacilli when compared to non-colicky infants175, 176.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Savino, F., Cresi, F., Pautasso, S., Palumeri, E., Tullio, V, Roana, J., Silvestro, L., & Oggero, R.
Affiliations
University of Turin (IT)
Corresponding author
Savino, F
Venue
Acta Paediatrica
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-06
Volume
93
Issue
6
Pages
825-829
ISSN
  • 0365-1436 (ISSN-L)
  • 0803-5253
  • 1651-2227
OpenAlex
W2093589092
Cited by
146
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 11
FWCI
11.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Acta Paediatrica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Infant Health and Development
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Infant Nutrition and Health
Keywords
infantile colic, gut microbiota, breast-fed infants, intestinal colonization, Lactobacillus, Gram-negative anaerobic bacteria, Clostridia, Enterobacteriaceae
MeSH terms
Breast Feeding, Colic, Feces, Female, Gram-Negative Bacteria, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Intestines, Lactobacillus, Male, Case-Control Studies

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