4.3 Article

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group dual site trial to evaluate the effects of a Bacillus coagulans-based product on functional intestinal gas symptoms

期刊

BMC GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-9-85

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ganeden Biotech

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: This randomized double blind placebo controlled dual site clinical trial compared a probiotic dietary supplement to placebo regarding effects on gastrointestinal symptoms in adults with post-prandial intestinal gas-related symptoms (abdominal pain, distention, flatulence) but no gastrointestinal (GI) diagnoses to explain the symptoms. Methods: Sixty-one adults were enrolled (age 36.5 +/- 12.6 years; height 165.1 +/- 9.2 cm; weight 75.4 +/- 17.3 kg) and randomized to either Digestive Advantage (TM) Gas Defense Formula - (GanedenBC(30) Bacillus coagulans GBI-30, 6086): n = 30; or Placebo: n = 31. Study subjects were evaluated every two weeks over a four-week period using validated questionnaires and standard biochemical safety testing. Outcome criteria of interest included change from baseline in Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) abdominal pain, abdominal distention, flatus, and the Severity of Dyspepsia Assessment (SODA) bloating and gas subscores over four weeks of product use. Results: Measured against the placebo, subjects in the probiotic group achieved significant improvements in GSRS abdominal pain subscore (p = 0.046) and the GSRS total score (p = 0.048), with a strong trend for improvement on the GSRS abdominal distension subscore (p = 0.061). A strong placebo effect was evident which could explain the lack of statistical significant differences between the groups for many of the efficacy variables. Conclusion: In conclusion, the Bacillus coagulans-based product was effective in improving the quality of life and reducing gastrointestinal symptoms in adults with post prandial intestinal gas-related symptoms and no GI diagnoses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据