3.8 Article

A double blind randomized controlled trial of a probiotic combination in 100 patients with irritable bowel syndrome

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGIE CLINIQUE ET BIOLOGIQUE
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 147-152

出版社

MASSON EDITEUR
DOI: 10.1016/j.gcb.2007.06.001

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives. -The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a probiotic combination on symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Methods. -We investigated the efficiency of a probiotic dietary supplement, containing four strains of lactic acid bacteria, on symptoms of IBS. One hundred and sixteen patients with IBS fulfilling the Rome II criteria were randomized in a parallel group, double-blind study to receive a placebo or a probiotic combination (1 x 10(10) cfu once daily) for four weeks. The symptoms that were monitored weekly included discomfort, abdominal pain, and stool frequency and quality. Quality of life was assessed before and at the end of the treatment using the SF36 and FDD-quality-of-life questionnaires. Results. -One hundred subjects completed the study (48 probiotic combination, 52 placebo). The probiotic combination was not superior to the placebo in relieving symptoms of IBS (42.6 versus 42.3% improvement). However, the decrease of abdominal pain between the first and the fourth week of treatment was significantly higher in probiotic treated patients (-41.9 versus -24.2%, P=0.048). Interesting findings from the IBS sub-groups were also, observed such as a tower pain score at end point in patients with alternating bowel habits (P=0.023) and an increase of stool frequency in the constipated sub-group from the first week of probiotic treatment (P=0.043). Conclusions. -The probiotic combination was not significantly superior to the placebo in relieving symptoms of IBS. Despite the apparent high placebo response, interesting findings from IBS sub-groups were observed in the field of abdominal pain and stool frequency. 0 2008 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

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

3.8
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