Search

Background To analyse the scientific evidence that exists for the advertising claims made for two products containing Lactobacillus casei and Bifidobacterium lactis and to conduct a comparison between the published literature and what is presented in the corporate website. Methods Systematic review, using Medline through Pubmed and Embase. We included human clinical trials that exclusively measured the effect of Lactobacillus casei or Bifidobacterium lactis on a healthy population, and where the objective was related to the health claims made for certain products in advertising. We assessed the levels of evidence and the strength of the recommendation according to the classification criteria established by the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM). We also assessed the outcomes of the studies published on the website that did not appear in the search. Results Of the 440 articles identified, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Only four (25%) of these presented a level of evidence of 1b and a recommendation grade of A, all corresponding to studies on product containing Bifidobacterium lactis, and only 12 of the 16 studies were published on the corporate website (47). Conclusions There is insufficient scientific evidence to support the health claims made for these products, especially in the case of product containing Lactobacillus casei.

Background To analyse the scientific evidence that exists for the advertising claims made for two products containing Lactobacillus casei and Bifidobacterium lactis and to conduct a comparison between the published literature and what is presented in the corporate website. Methods Systematic review, using Medline through Pubmed and Embase. We included human clinical trials that exclusively measured the effect of Lactobacillus casei or Bifidobacterium lactis on a healthy population, and where the objective was related to the health claims made for certain products in advertising. We assessed the levels of evidence and the strength of the recommendation according to the classification criteria established by the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM). We also assessed the outcomes of the studies published on the website that did not appear in the search. Results Of the 440 articles identified, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Only four (25%) of these presented a level of evidence of 1b and a recommendation grade of A, all corresponding to studies on product containing Bifidobacterium lactis, and only 12 of the 16 studies were published on the corporate website (47). Conclusions There is insufficient scientific evidence to support the health claims made for these products, especially in the case of product containing Lactobacillus casei.

Background The aim of this study was to determine compliance with published good practice guidelines for gender and clinical trials using etoricoxib. The rationale for choosing etoricoxib was that it is widely used by women and there is evidence of potential interaction with contraceptives and hormone replacement therapy as highlighted in the product characteristics. Methods The study reviewed 58 etoricoxib published trials (54 papers) to determine if they met the gender recommendations of the Guidelines of Food and Drug Administration (1993) and the Sex, Gender and Pain Special Interest Group Consensus Working Group Report (2007). Results Women formed 70% of a total of 49 835 subjects included in the etoricoxib trials, but only 31% of the subjects were in Phase I. About 85.7% of trials did not show sex-stratified data. About 90.6 and 93.3% did not provide efficacy and adverse effects data by sex, respectively. There is scarce information about the influence of issues that specifically affect women. Discussion Women are under-represented in the published etoricoxib trials, specifically, in Phase I. Sex-stratified data on efficacy and adverse effects are scarce in etoricoxib trials. Together with the lack of data on women-specific issues, this suggests that etoricoxib may pose the same potential problems for women as other cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors.