Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 346

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Probiotic Prophylaxis of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: A Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Open access
Morrow, Lee E., Kollef, Marin H., Casale, Thomas B.·2010·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

RATIONALE: Enteral administration of probiotics may modify the gastrointestinal environment in a manner that preferentially favors the growth of minimally virulent species. It is unknown whether probiotic modification of the upper aerodigestive flora can reduce nosocomial infections. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether oropharyngeal and gastric administration of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG can reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 146 mechanically ventilated patients at high risk of developing VAP. Patients were randomly assigned to receive enteral probiotics (n = 68) or an inert inulin-based placebo (n = 70) twice a day in addition to routine care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients treated with Lactobacillus were significantly less likely to develop microbiologically confirmed VAP compared with patients treated with placebo (40.0 vs. 19.1%; P = 0.007). Although patients treated with probiotics had significantly less Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea than patients treated with placebo (18.6 vs. 5.8%; P = 0.02), the duration of diarrhea per episode was not different between groups (13.2 ± 7.4 vs. 9.8 ± 4.9 d; P = 0.39). Patients treated with probiotics had fewer days of antibiotics prescribed for VAP (8.6 ± 10.3 vs. 5.6 ± 7.8 d; P = 0.05) and for C. difficile-associated diarrhea (2.1 ± 4.8 SD d vs. 0.5 ± 2.3 d; P = 0.02). No adverse events related to probiotic administration were identified. CONCLUSIONS: These pilot data suggest that L. rhamnosus GG is safe and efficacious in preventing VAP in a select, high-risk ICU population. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00613795).

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 · 10.1164/rccm.200912-1853oc

Cites

8 of 8 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 8 references

Cited by

See all 346

Metadata

Authors
Morrow, L. E., Kollef, M. H., & Casale, T. B.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2010-10-15
Volume
182
Issue
8
Pages
1058-1064
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2109891197
Cited by
346
References
8
FWCI
15.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Probiotic Prophylaxis of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: A Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/rccm.200912-1853oc
The paper
Morrow, L. E., Kollef, M. H., & Casale, T. B. (2010). Probiotic Prophylaxis of Ventilator-associated Pneumonia: A Blinded, Randomized, Controlled Trial. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.200912-1853oc

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.