Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 248

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Treating infant colic with the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri: double blind, placebo controlled randomised trial

Open access
Sung, V., Hiscock, H., Tang, M. L. K., Mensah, F. K., Nation, M. L., Satzke, C., Heine, R. G., Stock, A., Barr, R. G., Wake, M.·2014·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 reduces crying or fussing in a broad community based sample of breastfed infants and formula fed infants with colic aged less than 3 months. DESIGN: Double blind, placebo controlled randomised trial. SETTING: Community based sample (primary and secondary level care centres) in Melbourne, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 167 breastfed infants or formula fed infants aged less than 3 months meeting Wessel's criteria for crying or fussing: 85 were randomised to receive probiotic and 82 to receive placebo. INTERVENTIONS: Oral daily L reuteri (1 × 10(8) colony forming units) versus placebo for one month. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary outcome was daily duration of cry or fuss at 1 month. Secondary outcomes were duration of cry or fuss; number of cry or fuss episodes; sleep duration of infant at 7, 14, and 21 days, and 1 and 6 months; maternal mental health (Edinburgh postnatal depression subscale); family functioning (paediatric quality of life inventory), parent quality adjusted life years (assessment of quality of life) at 1 and 6 months; infant functioning (paediatric quality of life inventory) at 6 months; infant faecal microbiota (microbial diversity, colonisation with Escherichia coli), and calprotectin levels at 1 month. In intention to treat analyses the two groups were compared using regression models adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of 167 infants randomised from August 2011 to August 2012, 127 (76%) were retained to primary outcome; of these, a subset was analysed for faecal microbial diversity, E coli colonisation, and calprotectin levels. Adherence was high. Mean daily cry or fuss time fell steadily in both groups. At 1 month, the probiotic group cried or fussed 49 minutes more than the placebo group (95% confidence interval 8 to 90 minutes, P=0.02); this mainly reflected more fussing, especially for formula fed infants. The groups were similar on all secondary outcomes. No study related adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: L reuteri DSM 17938 did not benefit a community sample of breastfed infants and formula fed infants with colic. These findings differ from previous smaller trials of selected populations and do not support a general recommendation for the use of probiotics to treat colic in infants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95287767.

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 · 10.1136/bmj.g2107

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 248

Metadata

Authors
Sung, V., Hiscock, H., Tang, M. L. K., Mensah, F. K., Nation, M. L., Satzke, C., Heine, R. G., Stock, A., Barr, R. G., & Wake, M.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2014-04-01
Volume
348
Issue
apr01 2
Pages
g2107-g2107
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2120931944
Cited by
248
References
4
FWCI
83.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: Treating infant colic with the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri: double blind, placebo controlled randomised trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.g2107
The paper
Sung, V., Hiscock, H., Tang, M. L. K., Mensah, F. K., Nation, M. L., Satzke, C., Heine, R. G., Stock, A., Barr, R. G., & Wake, M. (2014). Treating infant colic with the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri: double blind, placebo controlled randomised trial. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2107

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.