Skip to the main content

Liver, kidney and digestion

Lactobacillus rhamnosus GGand Diarrhea duration

Both sources here measured lower diarrhea duration.

How sure anyone can be

Moderate certainty, level 3 of 4

Further research may change this.

The most certain of the two findings here; each record carries its own.

The numbers reported

One source’s range, drawn against its own line of no difference and scaled to its own numbers.

-1.15-0.85-0.56

This range stays on one side of the no-difference line.

Bar the confidence interval — the range the true effect is likely to sit inNotch the number the source reportedLine where there would be no difference at all

Two sources, newest first

What we read is the published abstract, not the full paper, so a blank below may still be printed in the paper itself. A fixed rule worked this out from the source’s own fields. Nobody checked this rating by hand.

  • Systematic review, 2019 · 15 studies pooled · 3,820 participants

    Moderate certainty, level 3 of 4

    Systematic review with meta-analysis: Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG for treating acute gastroenteritis in children - a 2019 update.

    Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2019;49(11):1376-1384. doi:10.1111/apt.15267. PMID:31025399.

    Number reported
    -0.85
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    -1.15 to -0.56
    Source’s own words
    days of diarrhoea, mean difference vs placebo or no treatment
    Who was studied
    Child with acute gastroenteritis
    Compared with
    placebo or no treatment
    Amount taken
    Recorded detail — CFU/day (effective at >=10^10 CFU/day; <10^10 CFU/day only borderline)
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    authors report high heterogeneity and methodological limitations in the included trials; no I2 value is given in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, one step down: risk of bias
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Ends at ModerateOne step down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness and imprecision
    Inconsistency
    No high disagreement reported between the 15 studies it pooled

    AI-reviewed & signed — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and checked that the quote, the numbers, the units and the direction match it. No person read it. The owner authorised the agent to sign the batch with the owner's key, and every build rechecks that signature against these exact bytes.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

  • Systematic review, 2019 · 19 studies pooled

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    Efficacy of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG in treatment of acute pediatric diarrhea: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

    World J Gastroenterol. 2019;25(33):4999-5016. doi:10.3748/wjg.v25.i33.4999. PMID:31543689.

    Number reported
    -24.02
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    -36.58 to -11.45
    Source’s own words
    hours of diarrhoea, mean difference vs control
    Who was studied
    Child with acute diarrhoea
    Compared with
    control
    Amount taken
    Recorded detail — CFU/day (larger effect at >=10^10 CFU/day)
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Imprecision brought it down to Lowthe abstract does not state how many participants were pooledNot in the abstract
    4. Ends at Low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness
    Inconsistency
    No high disagreement reported between the 19 studies it pooled

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI-reviewed & signed — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and checked that the quote, the numbers, the units and the direction match it. No person read it. The owner authorised the agent to sign the batch with the owner's key, and every build rechecks that signature against these exact bytes.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • One do not say how many people took part.
  • For how long — Not in the abstract.

Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.

Nothing left on our list for Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG

All two things on our list for Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG have been read. That is rare here.

Still to read means nobody here has got to it, not that it was tried and did nothing or that no research exists. A pairing on no list is not a gap: we never set out to read it.

Read next

This is a library, not advice. No recommendation, no dose, no diagnosis, no ranking. We never ask about your symptoms, and nothing here is tailored to you.