Table 4.
Study | Country | Treatment | Sample size |
Average days to reach full feed |
Registered | Sequence generation & Allocation concealment |
Data collectors/outcome assessors blinded | Year last enrolled participant | Primary Outcome(s) | Comments | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Treatment | Control | Treatment | Control | |||||||||
Hariharan et al.138 | India | L. acidophilus, B. bifidum, S. boulardii | 93 | 103 | 23.6* | 32.4* | No | UTD randomization method | UTD | UTD | Time to achieve oral feeds | Abstract only |
Arora et al.139 | India | L. rhamnosus, L. acidophilus, B. longum, S. boulardii | 75 | 75 | 8.53 | 10.7 | No | UTD randomization method | UTD | 2016 | NEC | Days to reach full feed stated as secondary outcome |
Shashidhar et al.137 | India | L. rhamnosus, L. acidophilus, B. longum, S. boulardii | 48 | 48 | 11.2 | 12.7 | Yes (CTRI/2012/08/002853)¶ | Low risk | Low risk | 2013 | Time to full enteral feeding |
NA = not available.
UTD = unable to be determined based on information provided.
*Difference in outcome between treatment and control arms was significant.