Research project led by Bailey Hanna, MS, RDN - no affiliate links, ads or sponsored products.
Lactobacillus reuteri DSM17938 has been evaluated in one single-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 92 participants with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). However, several critical issues were identified in this study, leading to its disqualification from our database:
Key Takeaway
The sole clinical trial available for Lactobacillus reuteri DSM17938 in an IBS population is of exceptionally poor quality, resulting in its disqualification from our database.
Dose
None
Reference:
Amirimani B, Nikfam S, Albaji M, et al. Probiotic vs. placebo in irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Middle East J Dig Dis 2013;5(2): 98-102. Probiotic vs. Placebo in Irritable Bowel Syndrome:A Randomized Controlled Trial – PMC (nih.gov) S
There is insufficient evidence demonstrating benefits for IBS with this probiotic. Therefore, we do not provide guidance on finding a commercial product containing this strain/blend.
This probiotic has low to moderate quality studies in IBS populations supporting it. View our evidence evaluation framework to learn how we assess the quality of studies.
Add condition
Probiotic vs. placebo in irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized controlled trial
Middle East J Dig Dis 2013;5(2): 98-102
ADULTS
No subtype-specific analysis was conducted in the study. However, the results showed a mean relative symptom score decrease for urgency of 24.6%. The probiotic group had a relative therapeutic gain over the placebo group in decreasing urgency scores by 7.5%, though this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.859).
Additionally, two participants (n=2) in the probiotic group experienced diarrhea as an adverse event, compared to none (n=0) in the placebo group, with this difference also not being statistically significant (p=0.503).
In the study, 14.6% (n=6) of participants in the probiotic group experienced constipation as an adverse event, while no participants (n=0) in the placebo group reported this issue. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.033).
In the study, the probiotic group showed a 1% mean relative improvement in evacuation score, while the placebo group had a 4.1% mean relative therapeutic gain. However, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (p=0.940).
Interestingly, the frequency of defecation increased in the Biogaia® group with a relative frequency number score increase of 4%, which was statistically significant from baseline (p=0.048).
Despite this improvement, the difference compared to the placebo group was not statistically significant (p=0.091). A notable limitation of the study is that it did not categorize patients based on whether they had diarrhea or constipation.
This lack of classification means the overall efficacy of the probiotic remains unclear.
No data
The study showed a mean relative improvement score for abdominal pain of 24.9% in the probiotic group, while the placebo group had a relative mean therapeutic gain over the probiotic of 8.6%. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.311).
Additionally, 7.3% (n=3) of participants in the probiotic group experienced abdominal pain as an adverse event, which was not statistically significant compared to the placebo group (p=1.00).
One participant in the probiotic group reported an adverse event of anal pain, but this was also not statistically significant compared to the placebo group (p=1.00).
The study reported a mean relative improvement score for bloating of 16.4% in the probiotic group. Interestingly, the placebo group showed a relative mean therapeutic gain over the probiotic group of 6.9%.
However, this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.657). On the other hand, 14.6% (n=6) of participants in the probiotic group experienced bloating as an adverse event, compared to none (n=0) in the placebo group. This was a statistically significant effect (p=0.033).
One participant (2.4%) in the probiotic group experienced nausea as an adverse event. This was not statistically significant when compared to the placebo group (p=1.00).
In the probiotic group, two participants experienced heartburn, one experienced epigastric burning, and one experienced epigastric fullness. These results were not statistically significant compared to the placebo group (p > 0.05).
Additional adverse events reported in the probiotic group included dark green stool (n=1), bad oral taste (n=1), headaches (n=1), belching (n=2), and skin rash (n=1). None of these adverse events were statistically significant compared to the placebo group (p > 0.05).