Dataset Information

Survey and Systematic Literature Review of Probiotics Stocked in Academic Medical Centers within the United States.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Probiotics have a wide variation in their effectiveness in preventing or treating conditions due to the varying beneficial effects of specific probiotic strains. In other words, there is no "generic equivalency" between different probiotic species. However, it is has been noted that many practitioners consider probiotics in generic terms and may not realize the impact of these differences between probiotics. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to identify probiotics used in US academic medical centers and to determine whether those probiotics were supported by a reliable evidence base. METHODS: A phone survey of 126 inpatient pharmacies in US academic medical centers was conducted to determine which probiotics were stocked. A systematic search was conducted to identify relevant studies that were then critically evaluated to determine whether the identified probiotics are supported by a reliable evidence base. RESULTS: There was a 90.5% (114/126) response rate of academic medical centers that were contacted through the phone survey. Ten probiotic products were identified through the phone survey. The probiotic most often stocked in academic medical centers was Culturelle (27.2%) followed by Lactinex (25.4%). The systematic search identified evidence that evaluated Culturelle, Florastor, Lactinex, and VSL #3. Of those 4 probiotics, none were supported by a strong evidence base. However, the results suggested that both Culturelle and Florastor appear to be supported by more evidence compared to other probiotics. CONCLUSION: A majority of academic medical centers did not stock a probiotic that was supported by a reliable evidence base.

SUBMITTER: Abe AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3859277 | biostudies-other | 2013 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAmerican College of Surgeons level I trauma center verification requires an active research program. This study investigated differences in the research programs of academic and non-academic trauma centers.MethodsA 28-question survey was administered to ACS-verified level I trauma centers in 11/12/2020-1/7/2021. The survey included questions on center characteristics (patient volume, staff size), peer-reviewed publications, staff and resources dedicated to research, and funding sources.ResultsThe survey had a 31% response rate: 137 invitations were successfully delivered via email, and 42 centers completed at least part of the survey. Responding level I trauma centers included 36 (86%) self-identified academic and 6 (14%) self-identified non-academic centers. Academic and non-academic centers reported similar annual trauma patient volume (2190 vs. 2450), number of beds (545 vs. 440), and years of ACS verification (20 vs. 14), respectively. Academic centers had more full-time trauma surgeons (median 8 vs 6 for non-academic centers) and general surgery residents (median 30 vs 7) than non-academic centers. Non-academic centers more frequently ranked trauma surgery (100% vs. 36% academic), basic science (50% vs. 6% academic), neurosurgery (50% vs. 14% academic), and nursing (33% vs. 0% academic) in the top three types of studies conducted. Academic centers were more likely to report non-profit status (86% academic, 50% non-academic) and utilized research funding from external governmental or non-profit grants more often (76% vs 17%).ConclusionsSurvey results suggest that academic centers may have more physician, resident, and financial resources available to dedicate to trauma research, which may make fulfillment of ACS level I research requirements easier. Structural and institutional changes at non-academic centers, such as expansion of general surgery resident programs and increased pursuit of external grant funding, may help ensure that academic and non-academic sites are equally equipped to fulfill ACS research criteria.

Project description:ContextIt is important for colleges of osteopathic medicine (COMs) to provide opportunities for osteopathic medical students (OMSs) to conduct research under the guidance of professional researchers. However, COMs historically lag behind allopathic medical schools in research offerings for medical students. The literature would benefit from a synopsis of research opportunities for OMSs at COMs.ObjectivesThis study aims to assess the availability of research opportunities currently offered to OMSs and to identify structured research programs (SRPs) to provide data that may help COMs expand such opportunities.MethodsTwo online surveys were developed. The General Survey asked about general research opportunities, research requirements, and SRPs, which we define as optional, intramural, and mentored research programs. The follow-up SRP Survey sought to understand the history, funding, and organizational structure of SRPs. Between February and June 2021, the General and SRP Surveys were sent to all COMs in the United States. Response data were analyzed descriptively.ResultsResponses were received from 32 (84.2%) of 38 COMs. Nearly all COMs offered research symposia, offered third- or fourth-year research elective rotations, and provided some form of funding for OMSs to participate in research. Fourteen (43.8%) COMs had mandatory research requirements. Twenty COMs (62.5%) offered 31 SRPs, and surveys were completed for 25 (80.6%) SRPs. SRPs were founded a median (range) of 7 (1-43) years prior and accommodated 20 (4-50) OMSs annually. Among the responding SRPs, 12.0% had external funding, 96.0% required applications, 50.0% interviewed applicants prior to acceptance into the program, 72.0% required OMSs to identify their own mentors, 68.0% offered stipends to OMSs, 28.0% offered course credits, 96.0% had clinical research opportunities, and 68.0% offered research-oriented didactics. In 84.0% of SRPs, OMSs worked predominantly in the summer after OMS-I; for these SRPs, students had 4-10 weeks of dedicated time for participation in research.ConclusionsFindings from our surveys provide a synopsis of the research opportunities currently provided by COMs in the United States. Our data demonstrated wide variability of research opportunities among COMs.

Dataset Information

Survey and Systematic Literature Review of Probiotics Stocked in Academic Medical Centers within the United States.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets