The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Ineffectiveness of probiotics in preventing recurrence after curative resection for Crohn's disease: a randomised controlled trial with Lactobacillus GG
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Experimental studies have shown that luminal bacteria may be involved in Crohn's disease. Probiotics are a possible alternative to antibiotics. The aim of this randomised placebo controlled study was to determine if Lactobacillus GG, given by mouth for one year, could prevent Crohn's recurrent lesions after surgery or to reduce their severity. METHODS: Patients operated on for Crohn's disease in whom all of the diseased gut had been removed were randomly allocated to receive 12 billion colony forming units of Lactobacillus or identical placebo for one year. Ileocolonoscopy was performed at the end of the trial or at the onset of symptoms. Endoscopic recurrence was defined as grade 2 or higher of Rutgeerts scoring system. RESULTS: Eight of 45 patients were excluded from the trial (three for non-compliance and five for protocol violations). Clinical recurrence was ascertained in three (16.6%) patients who received Lactobacillus and in two (10.5%) who received placebo. Nine of 15 patients in clinical remission on Lactobacillus (60%) had endoscopic recurrence compared with six of 17 (35.3%) on placebo (p=0.297). There were no significant differences in the severity of the lesions between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Lactobacillus GG seems neither to prevent endoscopic recurrence at one year nor reduce the severity of recurrent lesions.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Inflammatory bowel disease: Etiology and pathogenesis
Fiocchi, C. (1998) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/s0016-5085(98)70381-6 · Cited by 2,059
Rutgeerts, P., Hiele, M., Geboes, K., Peeters, M., Penninckx, F., Aerts, R., & Kerremans, R. (1995) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/0016-5085(95)90121-3 · Cited by 743
Cited by
Kruis, W., Frič, P., Pokrotnieks, J., Lukáš, M., Fixa, B., Kaščák, M., Kamm, M. A., Weismueller, J., Beglinger, C., Stolte, M., et al. (2004) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2003.037747 · Cited by 1,285
Genes and Molecules of Lactobacilli Supporting Probiotic Action
Lebeer, S., Vanderleyden, J., & De Keersmaecker, S. C. J. (2008) · Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews · doi:10.1128/mmbr.00017-08 · Cited by 1,013
Furrie, E., Macfarlane, S., Kennedy, A., Cummings, J. H., Walsh, S. V., O’Neil, D. A., & Macfarlane, G. T. (2005) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2004.044834 · Cited by 766
ESPEN guideline: Clinical nutrition in inflammatory bowel disease
Forbes, A., Escher, J., Hébuterne, X., Kłęk, S., Krznaric, Z., Schneider, S., Shamir, R., Stardelova, K., Wierdsma, N., Wiskin, A. E., et al. (2017) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2016.12.027 · Cited by 625
RetractedMechanisms of action of probiotics: Recent advances
Ng, S. C., Hart, A. L., Kamm, M. A., Stagg, A. J., & Knight, S. C. (2009) · Inflammatory Bowel Diseases · doi:10.1002/ibd.20602 · Cited by 596
Metadata
- Authors
- Prantera, C.
- Venue
- Gut
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2002-09-01
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 405-409
- ISSN
- 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2148859286
- Cited by
- 566
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 15.68
- 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.