Re: Treating infant colic with the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri: double blind, placebo controlled randomised trial
I was suprised to read this artilce, in light of the deluge of press information that led me to the study itself.
Whilst of course we all know better than to trust the intepretation of research rather than the research itself, as the authors signed off on this release, I was unsettled to find the message was so far from their findings.
Ultimately, the authors present a 4th study in a body of published work that is all of reasonable quality and contemperanous. They show in their own analysis, that their study does not change the overall meta-analysis and in doing so they acknowledge the key problem with such analysis - the studies are extremely heterogeneous. This, combined with the fact they have clearly had to statistically alter the published summary data from Dr Savino's trials (a practice that should be avoided it at all possible - afterall, I am sure Dr Savino would provide such data on request?), limits the usefulness of this analysis.
As such, I am left reading a trial that, when we clear the pomp and spin, has simply added to an ongoing clinical area of interest. The most interesting conclusion I found was the mention of the 5 other studies in practice and I agree a concluson should be delayed until such results can be pooled.
Competing interests:
I have received travel grants and honoraria from various formula companies, although none related to works involving probiotics.
I have previously published a Cochrane review on probiotics in UC.
I have worked with Dr Savino as a co-author on other Cochrane works
Rapid Response:
Re: Treating infant colic with the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri: double blind, placebo controlled randomised trial
I was suprised to read this artilce, in light of the deluge of press information that led me to the study itself.
Whilst of course we all know better than to trust the intepretation of research rather than the research itself, as the authors signed off on this release, I was unsettled to find the message was so far from their findings.
Ultimately, the authors present a 4th study in a body of published work that is all of reasonable quality and contemperanous. They show in their own analysis, that their study does not change the overall meta-analysis and in doing so they acknowledge the key problem with such analysis - the studies are extremely heterogeneous. This, combined with the fact they have clearly had to statistically alter the published summary data from Dr Savino's trials (a practice that should be avoided it at all possible - afterall, I am sure Dr Savino would provide such data on request?), limits the usefulness of this analysis.
As such, I am left reading a trial that, when we clear the pomp and spin, has simply added to an ongoing clinical area of interest. The most interesting conclusion I found was the mention of the 5 other studies in practice and I agree a concluson should be delayed until such results can be pooled.
Competing interests: I have received travel grants and honoraria from various formula companies, although none related to works involving probiotics. I have previously published a Cochrane review on probiotics in UC. I have worked with Dr Savino as a co-author on other Cochrane works