Effect of the probiotic Lactobacilli reuteri (Prodentis) in the management of periodontal disease: a preliminary randomized clinical trial

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of Lactobacilli reuteri (Prodentis) alone and in combination with scaling and root planing (SRP) in a double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of volunteers with chronic periodontitis. Methods: Thirty, otherwise systemically healthy, chronic periodontitis patients (19 males and 11 females, aged between 34 and 50 years) were included. The study period was 42 days. ‘Split-mouth’ design was used for the SRP, which was performed on day 0; two quadrants (either right or left) were treated with SRP whereas the remaining two quadrants were left untreated. The participants received a toothbrush, toothpaste, and brushing instructions. L. reuteri Prodentis lozenges (1×108 CFU DSM17938 + 1×108 CFU ATCC PTA 5289) or the corresponding placebo lozenges were taken twice daily from day 21 to day 42. Statistical analysis was done for comparisons of clinical parameters (Plaque Index (PI), Gingival Index (GI), Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI), probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL)) and microbiological levels of the pathogens Aggregibacter actinomycetemcomitans (Aa), Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg), and Prevotella intermedia (Pi). All p-values less than 0.05 were considered significant. Assessments were made on day 0 before SRP treatment, on day 21 before administration of the lozenges, and on day 42. Results: At day 42, the PI, GI, and GBI were significantly reduced by all treatment modalities. When ranked, the amount of PI, GI and GBI reduction by the different treatments was SRP + Prodentis > Prodentis > SRP + placebo > placebo; all differences were statistically significant. For PPD and CAL, the best result was obtained with the SRP + Prodentis treatment. PPD was reduced from 5.08±0.75 to 3.78±0.61 mm (p<0.001) and CAL from 3.93±0.93 to 2.85±0.74 mm (p<0.001). Prodentis, either alone or following SRP, reduced Aa, Pi, and Pg by 1 log10 unit (p<0.01). The SRP + placebo combination did not significantly affect the levels of the pathogens. Conclusion: The present randomized controlled trial confirms the plaque inhibition, anti-inflammatory, and antimicrobial effects of L. reuteri Prodentis. L. reuteri Prodentis probiotic can be recommended during non-surgical therapy and the maintenance phase of periodontal treatment. Considering the beneficial effects of probiotics, this therapy could serve as a useful adjunct or alternative to periodontal treatment when SRP might be contraindicated. Further studies are required in this direction

Can we predict citation counts of environmental modelling papers? Fourteen bibliographic and categorical variables predict less than 30% of the variability in citation counts

We assessed 6122 environmental modelling papers published since 2005 to determine whether the number of citations each paper had received by September 2014 could be predicted with no knowledge of the paper's quality. A random forest was applied, using a range of easily quantified or classified variables as predictors. The 511 papers published in two key journals in 2008 were further analysed to consider additional variables. Papers with no differential equations received more citations. The topic of the paper, number of authors and publication venue were also significant. Ten other factors, some of which have been found significant in other studies, were also considered, but most added little to the predictive power of the models. Collectively, all factors predicted 16–29% of the variation in citation counts, with the remaining variance (the majority) presumably attributable to important subjective factors such as paper quality, clarity and timeliness

Antibiotic prescriptions for upper respiratory tract infections in France and The Netherlands: determinants at the patient and GP level.

Within Europe, France and the Netherlands are extremes when it comes to the prescription of antibiotics: France has the highest volume in the European Union, the Netherlands the lowest. Antibiotic prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections (URTI) is not recommended in both countries. Non-rational prescribing antibiotics is problematic in terms of public health and health care resources. Determinants for antibiotics prescribing are not clear. In this paper we study what are determinants for antibiotic prescription in ‘highusing’ France and ‘low-using’ the Netherlands at both the patient and the GP level. Methods: For France, data were used from 778 GPs and 185 383 patients who had at least one URTI consultation; for the Netherlands data were available on 123 GPs with 23 828 patients with at least one URTI consultation. Data on consultations, prescriptions and patients were available from routine databases in both countries for 2001. In both countries information on GP determinants were collected in an additional written survey. The same binary multilevel analysis was performed with two levels of inference: GP and patient. The outcome variable was having gotten an antibiotic prescription (0 = no; 1 = yes). Results: Both in France and the Netherlands the probability of receiving an antibiotic prescription is largely explained by patient influence (about 70%). However, GP characteristics also clearly influence the chance that a patient receives antibiotics. In both countries patients are more likely to get an antibiotic if they have more severe complaints. However, the results for socioeconomic variables differ between the countries. For example, while in France women and non-employed are less likely to be treated with antibiotics, in the Netherlands women and nonemployed are more likely to be treated. At the GP level an important finding is that both in France and the Netherlands the number of recent visits from pharmaceutical sales representatives is associated with a higher probability of antibiotic prescriptions. Conclusions: Although France and the Netherlands have considerable different levels of antibiotic prescriptions, considerable differences in level of antibiotic prescriptions can be found between patient groups and between GPs in both countries. The influence of the pharmaceutical industry explains differences in antibiotic prescriptions between GPs and their patients on a similar way in France and Netherlands. (aut. ref.