Reference | Country | Stool Frequency Reduction | Probability of Diarrhea Continuation |
---|---|---|---|

Sachdev et al^{17} (1988) | India | 18% lower frequency | 9% shorter duration |

Sazawal et al^{31} (1995) | India | 39% lower frequency | 19% shorter duration |

Roy et al^{30} (1997) | Bangladesh | 28% lower stool output | 14% reduction in probability |

Faruque et al^{27} (1999) | Bangladesh | Not reported | 20% reduction in probability |

Hidayat et al^{28} (1998) | Indonesia | Not reported | 11% reduction in probability |

Dutta et al^{26} (2000) | India | 38% lower stool output | 32% shorter duration |

Strand et al^{32} (2002) | Nepal | 8% lower frequency | 26% reduction in probability |

Bahl et al^{23} (2002) | India | 17% lower frequency | 11% reduction in probability |

Al-Sonboli et al^{22} (2003) | Brazil | 59% lower frequency | Not reported |

Polat et al^{29} (2003) | Turkey | 14% lower frequency | 20% shorter duration |

Bhatnagar et al^{24} (2004) | India | 25% lower stool output | 30% reduction in probability |

Valery et al^{19} (2005) | Australia | Not reported | Not reported |

Brooks et al^{25} (2005) | India | Not reported | 19% reduction in probability, 7% shorter duration |

Brooks et al^{25} (2005) | Bangladesh | 0% lower frequency | 12% reduction in probability, 0% shorter duration |

Baqui et al^{15} (2002) | Bangladesh | Not reported | 24% shorter duration |

Fischer Walker et al^{16} (2006) | Pakistan, Ethiopia, India | 5% higher frequency | 9% shorter duration |

Average stool frequency reduction = 18.8%; average lowering of stool output = 30.3%; average shortening of duration = 15.0%; average probability of diarrhea reduction = 17.9%. Variances in data reporting of outcome measures: For this meta-analysis, shortening of diarrhea duration was defined as the percentage ratio of the mean number of days of diarrhea in each study group. It was then reported as a shorter percentage of time with diarrhea for one group or the other. Probability of diarrhea duration was calculated by authors using various statistical approaches, such as the odds ratio, risk ratio, or hazards ratio. This difference in statistic negated a comparison in the meta-analysis. Stool frequency reduction was calculated by taking a ratio of the average diarrhea frequency in some studies per 24 hours or by the risk ratio of the mean number of stools in the first 4 days of another study. Lower stool output was calculated, in 2 studies, by taking a ratio of the total stool weight per kilogram of body weight and reporting the median. The ratio of the median was then taken. The resulting percentage was interpreted as a lowering of stool output in one group or the other. In another study, it was reported as the total stool output until the last first formed stool, measured in grams per kilogram for each group. The geometric mean was then taken and a ratio between groups obtained. The group with the lower percentage was interpreted as a lowering of stool output in one group or another.