eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. To submit an eLetter please go to the article you wish to respond to and click on the link that reads "eLetters: Submit a Response." Submission of eLetters are open to all health care professionals and experts in related fields.

eLetters to:

REVIEW ARTICLE:
Cornelius W. Van Niel, Chris Feudtner, Michelle M. Garrison, and Dimitri A. Christakis
Lactobacillus Therapy for Acute Infectious Diarrhea in Children: A Meta-analysis
Pediatrics 2002; 109: 678-684 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]
*eLetters: Submit a response to this article

eLetters published:

[Read eLetters] Live versus killed Lactobacilllus
Maurice Vanbellinghen   (3 February 2003)

Live versus killed Lactobacilllus 3 February 2003
Top
Maurice Vanbellinghen,
health journalist
belgian consumers association

Send letter to journal:
Re: Live versus killed Lactobacilllus

mvanbellinghen{at}test-aankoop.be Maurice Vanbellinghen

The autors state : "We did not find (...) that the effect of Lactobacillus on diarrhea duration was modified by (...) live versus killed Lactobacillus preparation". From this I infer that the authors suppose that killed Lactobacillus- bacteria are or can be as effective as live Lactobacillus-bacteria. Yet, in Table 1 (Included Studies)I see only 1 study having used killed L. acidophilus (Simakachorn et al.) Furthermore, is it methodologically correct to include in a meta-analysis such differents products? Killed bacteria are not live bacteria, I would say. Seems a bit strange to me. And how can one then conclude, on the basis of only 1 study, that killed bacteria could be effective in reducing the duration of diarrhea in children?