
pmid: 25689962
13.1 % (95 % CI: 0.8–25.3 %) [3]. These data need to be interpreted with caution as most of the studies were not from LMIC (low middle income countries) and there was marked variability across the studies, such as use of different strains, variable doses, and different breast feeding and dietary practices. Additionally, these studies did not evaluate the effects of probiotics with the concurrent use of zinc, which is currently the accepted adjunct to ORS in the treatment of diarrhea. Most of the earlier studies that evaluated the effect of probiotics in the prevention of acute diarrhea were once again from developed countries and the effects were dependent on the host and the particular strain used [4]. The only large RCT evaluating the effect of probiotics on prevention of diarrhea in India was in an urban slum that found a protective efficacy of 14%(95%CI4–23%)in3758children,followedforaperiod of 24 wk. However, one must note that the 95 % CI was very
Diarrhea, Probiotics, Humans, Child, Pediatrics
Diarrhea, Probiotics, Humans, Child, Pediatrics
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 2 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
