Cited by 105Gastrointestinal motility and disordersProbiotics and Fermented FoodsMicrobial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 32 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Effect of yogurt containing polydextrose, Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM and Bifidobacterium lactis HN019: a randomized, double-blind, controlled study in chronic constipation

Open access
Magro, Daniéla Oliveira, de Oliveira, Lais Mariana R, Bernasconi, Isabela, de Souza Ruela, Marilia, Credidio, Laura, Barcelos, Irene K, Leal, Raquel F, Ayrizono, Maria de Lourdes Stesuko, Fagundes, João José, Teixeira, Leandro de B, Ouwehand, Arthur C, Coy, Claudio S R·2014·Nutrition Journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Constipation is a frequent complaint and the combination of a prebiotic and probiotics could have a potentially synergic effect on the intestinal transit. The present study therefore aims to investigate the combination of polydextrose (Litesse), L. acidophilus NCFM® and B. lactis HN019 in a yogurt on intestinal transit in subjects who suffer from constipation. METHODS: Patients with constipation were randomly divided into two groups, Control Group (CG) and Treatment Group (TG), and had to eat 180 ml of unflavored yogurt every morning for 14 days. Those in the CG received only yogurt, while the TG received yogurt containing polydextrose, L. acidophilus NCFM (ATCC 700396) and B. lactis HN019 (AGAL NM97/09513). RESULTS: Favourable clinical response was assessed since Agachan score had a significant reduction at the end of the study in both groups and tended to be better in the TG. The subjects in the treatment group also had a shorter transit time at the end of the intervention compared to the control group (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: The product containing yogurt with polydextrose, B. lactis HN019 and L. acidophilus NCFM® significantly shortened colonic transit time after two weeks in the TG compared to CG and may be an option for treatment of constipation.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In adults with chronic constipation, 14 days of yogurt containing polydextrose, *Lactobacillus acidophilus* NCFM, and *Bifidobacterium lactis* HN019 significantly shortened colonic transit time compared with control yogurt. Both groups improved on the Agachan constipation score, but bowel movement frequency did not change.

Key findings

  • Of 47 participants, 43 (91.5%) were women; the Control Group had 21 participants and the Treatment Group had 26.
  • Agachan score decreased significantly in both groups: CG from 14.3 ± 2.4 to 8.3 ± 3.5; TG from 13.8 ± 2.1 to 5.3 ± 2.9, with final TG lower than final CG (p = 0.005).
  • Colonic transit time at the end of intervention was shorter in the TG than in the CG (24.6 ± 12.8 h vs 33.9 ± 12.4 h; p = 0.01).
  • Bowel movements per day remained unchanged: CG 0.7 ± 0.3 to 0.7 ± 0.3; TG 0.7 ± 0.3 to 0.8 ± 0.3 (p > 0.05).

Methods

  • Randomized, double-blind, controlled study in volunteers aged 18–45 with chronic constipation and Agachan score 10–20; exclusions included hypothyroidism, antidepressant use, and normal CTT (≤24 h) or CTT >96 h.
  • Participants consumed 180 ml unflavored yogurt every morning for 14 days: CG received yogurt only; TG received yogurt with polydextrose, *L. acidophilus* NCFM (ATCC 700396), and *B. lactis* HN019 (AGAL NM97/09513), with at least 10^9 CFU per strain per portion.
  • Outcomes were Agachan score, colonic transit time by abdominal X-ray after radio-opaque markers, and daily bowel movement records; analyses used Fisher’s exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, and t-test with significance at 5%.

Limitations

  • The paper does not state a limitations section.
  • Evident from the text: small sample (47 participants), predominantly women (43/47; 91.5%), short 14-day intervention, and no long-term follow-up.
  • Also evident: bowel movement frequency did not change, both groups improved on Agachan score, and several authors are DuPont Nutrition and Health employees, the source of the tested strains.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1475-2891-13-75

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

24 Not checked yet · 9 Own method · 7 Own result · 2 Own interpretation · 1 No basis given

Verify all 32 references — free account

Show all 17 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 12
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 21
26 of 26
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There are few studies evaluating the effect of functional foods on constipation.

    “Currently, there is great interest in functional foods. There are, however, few studies that evaluate their effect on constipation.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A daily dose of at least one billion colony forming units is necessary to obtain probiotic benefits.

    “To obtain these benefits, as a rule of thumb a dose of at least a billion colony forming units should be consumed daily.”
2 of 2

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Show all 30 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–105 of 105

Metadata

Authors
Magro, D. O., de Oliveira, L. M. R., Bernasconi, I., de Souza Ruela, M., Credidio, L., Barcelos, I. K., Leal, R. F., Ayrizono, M. D. L. S., Fagundes, J. J., Teixeira, L. D. B., Ouwehand, A. C., & Coy, C. S. R.
Affiliations
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) (BR)
Corresponding author
Magro, Daniéla Oliveira
Venue
Nutrition Journal
Published
2014-07-24
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
75-75
ISSN
1475-2891 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2108265425
Cited by
105
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4
FWCI
7.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nutrition Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Microbial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
Keywords
chronic constipation, yogurt, polydextrose, Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM, prebiotics, probiotics, colonic transit time, functional foods
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Bifidobacterium, Chronic Disease, Constipation, Double-Blind Method, Female, Glucans, Humans, Intestines, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Male, Middle Aged, Yogurt, Body Mass Index, Probiotics, Young Adult

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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