Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 386

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Probiotics for Primary Prevention: No Clinical Effects of Lactobacillus GG Supplementation

Kopp, Matthias Volkmar, Hennemuth, Isabell, Heinzmann, Andrea, Urbanek, Radvan·2008·Pediatrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND. The value of probiotics for primary prevention is controversial. Published trials vary considerably in study design and the applied probiotics, thereby limiting comparability of the results. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this trial was to study the preventive effect of the probiotic Lactobacillus GG on the development of atopic dermatitis. METHODS. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled prospective trial, 105 pregnant women from families with ≥1 member (mother, father, or child) with an atopic disease were randomly assigned to receive either the probiotic Lactobacillus GG (American Type Culture Collection 53103; 5 × 109 colony-forming units of Lactobacillus GG twice daily) or placebo. Ninety-four families (89.5%) completed the trial. The supplementation period started 4 to 6 weeks before expected delivery, followed by a postnatal period of 6 months. The primary end point was the occurrence of atopic dermatitis at the age of 2 years. Secondary outcomes were severity of atopic dermatitis, recurrent episodes of wheezing bronchitis, and allergic sensitization at the age of 2 years. RESULTS. Atopic dermatitis was diagnosed in 14 (28%) of 50 in the Lactobacillus GG group and in 12 (27.3%) of 44 in the placebo group. The risk of atopic dermatitis in children on probiotics relative to placebo was 0.96 (confidence interval 0.38–2.33). Severity of atopic dermatitis was comparable between the 2 groups. Notably, children with recurrent (≥5) episodes of wheezing bronchitis were more frequent in the Lactobacillus GG group (26%; n = 13), as compared with the placebo group (9.1%; n = 4). No difference was observed between both groups in total immunoglobulin E concentrations or numbers of specific sensitization to inhalant allergens. CONCLUSIONS. Supplementation with Lactobacillus GG during pregnancy and early infancy neither reduced the incidence of atopic dermatitis nor altered the severity of atopic dermatitis in affected children but was associated with an increased rate of recurrent episodes of wheezing bronchitis. Therefore, Lactobacillus GG cannot be generally recommended for primary prevention.

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 · 10.1542/peds.2007-1492

Cites

28 of 28 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 28 references

Cited by

See all 386

Metadata

Authors
Kopp, M. V., Hennemuth, I., Heinzmann, A., & Urbanek, R.
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2008-04-01
Volume
121
Issue
4
Pages
e850-e856
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W2094440904
Cited by
386
References
28
FWCI
68.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Probiotics for Primary Prevention: No Clinical Effects of Lactobacillus GG Supplementation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1542/peds.2007-1492
The paper
Kopp, M. V., Hennemuth, I., Heinzmann, A., & Urbanek, R. (2008). Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Probiotics for Primary Prevention: No Clinical Effects of Lactobacillus GG Supplementation. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-1492

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.