Vitamins & Supplements · Probiotic
Lactobacillus reuteri
Limosilactobacillus reuteri · also called L. reuteri, Lactobacillus reuteri, DSM 17938 (strain)
Lactobacillus reuteri is a probiotic bacterium sold in drops, tablets and lozenges. It is mostly studied in babies with colic. In breastfed babies one strain, DSM 17938, cut crying in pooled trials, but a large community trial found no benefit and the NHS does not recommend probiotics for colic. Premature babies and very sick people can get serious infections from probiotics, so ask a doctor first.
General information, not medical advice. Last substantive update · Not medically reviewed. A named clinician has not signed off on this page. How this page is made
About Lactobacillus reuteri
L. reuteri is a probiotic bacterium. Evidence is strongest, though mixed, for colic in breastfed babies. It is strain-specific, and premature or very ill people face real infection risks.
What L. reuteri is
L. reuteri, now named Limosilactobacillus reuteri, is a probiotic: a live bacterium sold as a supplement. A 2022 review says it makes reuterin and other substances that may hold back harmful microbes, though this comes mainly from preclinical work.
Most of the research uses one strain, DSM 17938, mostly as drops for babies. Lozenges were tested for gum disease.
What the research shows
For colic, a 2018 pooled analysis of 4 trials (345 babies) found less crying with DSM 17938, mostly in breastfed babies. A 2014 Melbourne trial of 167 babies found no benefit, and the NHS says there is no evidence probiotics help colic. For children's diarrhoea, European guidelines give only a weak recommendation on very low-quality evidence.
A 2026 analysis in premature babies found fewer cases of necrotizing enterocolitis. This is a hospital decision, and the FDA warns about serious infection. For gum disease, small trials found a little extra benefit as an add-on to dental cleaning.
Strain and product matter
A 2018 review of 228 trials found probiotic benefit depends on both the strain and the condition. A product that lists only "L. reuteri" may not match the strain tested. The NHS says probiotics are classed as food, so labels cannot always be trusted.
Food versus pills
Trial results are for specific products in drops, lozenges or capsules. Food sources of L. reuteri and amounts were not researched, so no food claim is made. This page gives no amounts to take.
At a glance
Traditional uses history, not proof
- Not a traditional remedy: a modern probiotic studied in clinical trials
Studied for research
- Colic in breastfed babies (strain DSM 17938), mixed evidence
- Colic in formula-fed babies, insufficient evidence
- Preventing colic, insufficient evidence
- Acute diarrhoea in children, very low certainty
- Necrotizing enterocolitis in premature babies, low certainty (hospital only)
- Gum disease as an add-on to dental cleaning, low certainty
- Preventing antibiotic diarrhoea in children, low certainty
Main compounds
- Reuterin and other substances the bacteria make
Common forms
- Drops for babies
- Chewable tablets and lozenges
- Capsules and powders
Research links: 2018 pooled analysis: L. reuteri for infant colic (4 trials) · 2014 BMJ trial: no benefit in a community sample · 2019 Cochrane review: probiotics to prevent colic · 2026 meta-analysis: colic and preterm babies · FDA 2023 warning on probiotics in preterm infants · Research Library · Genes & Biomarkers Library
What it is and its history
- Accepted scientific name
- Limosilactobacillus reuteri
- Naming authority
- Not read from a source
- Synonyms
- Lactobacillus reuteri
- Common names
- L. reuteri (English); Lactobacillus reuteri (English); L. reuteri DSM 17938 (English (strain name))
- Family or group
- A lactobacillus-type probiotic bacterium. The genus was renamed from Lactobacillus to Limosilactobacillus; this is shown by the 2022 review title.
- Classification
- Bacteria > Limosilactobacillus > reuteri
- Habitat
- Not researched here.
- Look-alikes and adulterants
- Name: Other probiotics; Note: Different strains and species have different evidence (McFarland 2018).; Name: Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG; Note: Another strain studied in children; separate evidence.
What is inside, and how it may work
What it contains and how those compounds act in cells and animals. Laboratory and animal mechanisms are not proven effects in people.
Main compounds
| Compound | Family | Where it is concentrated | Activity studied | Level of evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reuterin and other secreted substances | bacterial products | Not read from a source. | The 2022 review says the species secretes reuterin and other substances that inhibit pathogens and interact with gut bacteria and lining. 3 | Preclinical |
Mechanisms, receptors and pathways
| Target or pathway | Gene or receptor | What was found | Level |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gut bacteria, gut lining, pain threshold and gut movement | Not specified | The 2022 review describes preclinical work: less dysbiosis, a higher pain threshold and better gut motility. One 2010 trial found more stool lactobacilli and fewer E. coli with the probiotic in breastfed babies. 3 7 | Preclinical and small human trial |
Absorption, metabolism and elimination
- Distribution
- Not researched.
- Elimination
- Not researched.
Isolated compounds versus whole extracts
Results come from specific strains in capsules, tablets, lozenges or drops. Food sources of L. reuteri and their amounts were not researched, and food results should not be assumed to match trial products.
Nutritional composition
This is a living microbe, not a nutrient; there is no daily requirement and no food-amount table. Food sources were not researched.
1 mixed findings3 low certainty2 very low certainty3 not enough evidence
What was looked at
The 9 benefits and uses checked for Lactobacillus reuteri, each with how strong the evidence is. Tap one to open it.
- Infant colic in breastfed babies (strain DSM 17938)Mixed findings
- Infant colic in formula-fed babiesNot enough evidence
- Preventing colic in newbornsNot enough evidence
- Acute diarrhoea in childrenVery low certainty
- Preterm babies: necrotizing enterocolitis and feeding (hospital use only)Low certainty
- Gum disease (chronic periodontitis), as an add-on to dental cleaningLow certainty
- Preventing antibiotic-associated and hospital-acquired diarrhoea in childrenLow certainty
- Side effects of H. pylori antibiotic treatmentVery low certainty
- "General gut health" or microbiome balanceNot enough evidence
Lab markers tracked in the studies
Daily crying and fussing timeTreatment success (half the crying)Gum pocket depth and attachmentNecrotizing enterocolitis and feeding intolerance in preterm babies
What is Lactobacillus reuteri good for?
The main studied uses and how strong the human evidence is for each. Almost all results are for one strain, DSM 17938, in babies.
Benefits, one by one
Each card is a research question, not a promise. Tap a goal to filter. Open a card to see the studies, doses and limits.
Infant colic in breastfed babies (strain DSM 17938)
Mixed findingsIn breastfed babies with colic, pooled trials of one strain, L. reuteri DSM 17938, found less crying. A large community trial found no benefit, and the NHS says it is not recommended.
7 studiesStudied: a drops form of one strain, L. reuteri DSM 17938, for about …
Studies, doses and limits
What the trials found
A 2018 pooled analysis of 4 double-blind trials (345 babies) found less crying and fussing and about twice the chance of treatment success at 21 days, mostly in breastfed babies. Two small trials of breastfed babies (50 and 52 babies) each found less crying. The 2026 meta-analysis of 11 colic trials (555 babies) also found more babies responding. The 2014 Melbourne trial (167 babies) found no benefit.
Results
Positive for this one strain in breastfed babies in pooled and small trials, but the picture is mixed: one large trial in a general community sample found no benefit, and the NHS page says there is no evidence probiotics help colic.
Effect sizes as reported
Pooled: crying/fussing -25.4 minutes (95% CI -47.3 to -3.5) and success incidence ratio 1.7 at day 21; number needed to treat 2.6 in breastfed babies. Melbourne trial: 49 minutes more cry/fuss with the probiotic (95% CI 8 to 90).
Why this rating
Several trials point one way, but the largest community trial points the other, trials were small, and the NHS finds no evidence of help.
Form and dose studied
Studied: a drops form of one strain, L. reuteri DSM 17938, for about 21 to 30 days. Other L. reuteri strains and other probiotics were not tested in these trials.
Who was studied
Babies under 3 months with colic, mainly exclusively breastfed.
Limits
Small trials; only one strain; mostly short follow-up; results differ between selected and community samples; abstracts only were read.
Why researchers looked
Colic is hard on families, and parents ask whether a probiotic can shorten the crying.
Traditional use
Not a traditional remedy: this is a modern probiotic strain studied in clinical trials.
Proposed mechanism Not established
Not established for these results. A 2022 review says the strain makes reuterin and other substances and may act on gut bacteria and gut lining, but this is described mainly from lab and preclinical work.
A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.
No harmful events related to the supplement were reported in the trials read. This does not cover premature or seriously ill babies; see the Safety tab.
Infant colic in formula-fed babies
Not enough evidenceFor formula-fed babies there was no clear effect, and too little data to decide.
2 studiesL. reuteri DSM 17938 drops in the studies.
Studies, doses and limits
What the trials found
The 2018 pooled analysis reported the effect was dramatic in breastfed babies but insignificant in formula-fed babies. The 2014 Melbourne trial included both feeding types and found more fussing with the probiotic.
Results
Not shown. The pooled analysis found no significant effect in formula-fed babies and said there were too few data. In the Melbourne trial the probiotic group fussed more, especially formula-fed babies.
Effect sizes as reported
Formula-fed effect not significant in the pooled analysis; Melbourne trial: probiotic 49 minutes more cry/fuss at 1 month.
Why this rating
Too few formula-fed babies in the pooled trials to conclude.
Form and dose studied
L. reuteri DSM 17938 drops in the studies.
Who was studied
Formula-fed babies with colic.
Limits
Few data; abstract only.
Why researchers looked
Parents of formula-fed babies ask whether the breastfed result applies to them.
Traditional use
Not a traditional remedy: this is a modern probiotic strain studied in clinical trials.
Proposed mechanism Not established
Not applicable.
A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.
No benefit shown; see Safety tab for infant cautions.
Preventing colic in newborns
Not enough evidenceGiving probiotics to newborns before colic starts has not been shown to prevent it.
1 studiesDifferent probiotics, some started in pregnancy.
Studies, doses and limits
What the trials found
The 2019 Cochrane review pooled 6 trials (1886 babies); 3 trials (1148 babies) gave a risk ratio of 0.46 (95% CI 0.18 to 1.19) for new colic.
Results
No clear effect. A Cochrane review found no difference in new cases of colic (low-certainty evidence). Only 2 of 6 trials used L. reuteri.
Effect sizes as reported
RR 0.46 (0.18 to 1.19), not significant; no difference in serious adverse effects (RR 1.02, 0.14 to 7.21).
Why this rating
Low-certainty evidence, mixed probiotics, wide intervals.
Form and dose studied
Different probiotics, some started in pregnancy.
Who was studied
Healthy newborns under 1 month.
Limits
Strains differ, so this is not a clean test of L. reuteri alone.
Why researchers looked
Some parents ask whether starting a probiotic early could stop colic.
Traditional use
Not a traditional remedy: this is a modern probiotic strain studied in clinical trials.
Proposed mechanism Not established
Not applicable.
A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.
Four serious events overall were balanced between groups per the review abstract.
Acute diarrhoea in children
Very low certaintyOne strain (DSM 17938) may shorten diarrhoea a little in children, but medical guidelines give it only a weak recommendation on very low-quality evidence.
4 studiesL. reuteri DSM 17938, in children with infectious diarrhoea along wit…
Studies, doses and limits
What the trials found
The 2014 ESPGHAN position paper ranked L. reuteri DSM 17938 below L. rhamnosus GG and Saccharomyces boulardii. The 2022 narrative review says it can decrease diarrhoea duration and hospital stay but does not seem to prevent hospital-acquired or antibiotic-associated diarrhoea.
Results
Possible small benefit, with guidelines cautious. ESPGHAN (2014) rated the evidence very low quality with a weak recommendation. A 2022 review says the strain can shorten acute diarrhoea and hospital stay.
Effect sizes as reported
No numbers in the abstracts read. An earlier site figure of about 24 hours is NOT verified.
Why this rating
Guideline grading is very low quality; the review is narrative; the AGA documents could not be read.
Form and dose studied
L. reuteri DSM 17938, in children with infectious diarrhoea along with rehydration.
Who was studied
Previously healthy infants and children.
Limits
Guideline is from 2014; newer trials may exist.
Why researchers looked
Probiotics are often tried when children have stomach bugs.
Traditional use
Not a traditional remedy: this is a modern probiotic strain studied in clinical trials.
Proposed mechanism Preclinical
The 2022 review describes reuterin production and effects on gut bacteria and lining, from preclinical work.
A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.
Children with diarrhoea need fluids and medical advice if signs of dehydration appear.
Preterm babies: necrotizing enterocolitis and feeding (hospital use only)
Low certaintyIn a 2026 pooled analysis of trials in premature babies, the strain lowered feeding trouble and necrotizing enterocolitis. The FDA warns about serious infection in premature babies given probiotics.
4 studiesL. reuteri DSM 17938, given in neonatal units.
Studies, doses and limits
What the trials found
The 2026 meta-analysis of 8 randomised trials (1704 preterm babies) found fewer cases of feeding intolerance and NEC, earlier full feeds and a shorter stay, with no effect on sepsis. The FDA (2023) says avoid routine probiotic use in preterm babies, especially under 1000 g, and no probiotic is FDA-approved for infants. The reported death involved a different bacterium (Bifidobacterium longum).
Results
A possible benefit in hospital trials, balanced by a regulator warning. This is a decision for the hospital team only.
Effect sizes as reported
Feeding intolerance OR 0.57 (0.42 to 0.79); NEC OR 0.49 (0.31 to 0.77); sepsis no significant effect.
Why this rating
Meta-analysis of trials read from an abstract only; the quality of trials is not given; the regulator advises against routine use; AGA statements could not be read.
Form and dose studied
L. reuteri DSM 17938, given in neonatal units.
Who was studied
Premature newborns in hospital.
Limits
Abstract only; trial quality not stated; results for DSM 17938 only.
Why researchers looked
Premature babies can get a serious gut illness, and doctors have tested probiotics to prevent it.
Traditional use
Not a traditional remedy: this is a modern probiotic strain studied in clinical trials.
Proposed mechanism Not established
Not established.
A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.
Live bacteria can enter the blood of very small or very sick babies. See the Safety tab.
Gum disease (chronic periodontitis), as an add-on to dental cleaning
Low certaintyLozenges added to a deep dental clean gave a little more improvement in some trials. Evidence is limited.
2 studiesLozenges used twice a day for 12 weeks in the trial.
Studies, doses and limits
What the trials found
A 2013 trial of 30 adults found more pocket-depth reduction and attachment gain in moderate and deep pockets with lozenges added to a deep clean. A 2024 review of 11 studies (369 adults) found 8 of 11 better for pocket depth and 7 of 11 for attachment; the others found no significant gain.
Results
Small improvements as an add-on, with a high risk of bias in the reviewed trials.
Effect sizes as reported
8 of 11 studies better for pocket depth; 7 of 11 for attachment; 30-person trial p<0.05 in moderate and deep pockets.
Why this rating
Small studies, high or uncertain bias, strains differ, and the strain in the lozenges is not named in the abstract.
Form and dose studied
Lozenges used twice a day for 12 weeks in the trial.
Who was studied
Adults with chronic periodontitis having scaling and root planing.
Limits
It does not replace dental care.
Why researchers looked
The mouth has its own bacteria, and some trials tested whether L. reuteri lozenges help gums heal.
Traditional use
Not a traditional remedy: this is a modern probiotic strain studied in clinical trials.
Proposed mechanism Human microbiology
The 2013 trial found more reduction of Porphyromonas gingivalis, a gum bacterium.
A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.
No side effects were reported in the abstracts read.
Preventing antibiotic-associated and hospital-acquired diarrhoea in children
Low certaintyA 2022 review says the strain does not seem to prevent these types of diarrhoea in children.
2 studiesL. reuteri DSM 17938 in children.
Studies, doses and limits
What the trials found
The 2022 review says the strain does not seem to prevent antibiotic-associated or hospital-acquired diarrhoea. A 2018 review of 228 trials found that some strains work for this use in adults and others do not, so it depends on the strain.
Results
No clear benefit for this strain.
Effect sizes as reported
No numbers in the abstract.
Why this rating
Narrative review; abstract only.
Form and dose studied
L. reuteri DSM 17938 in children.
Who was studied
Children on antibiotics or in hospital.
Limits
Adult results for other strains do not transfer.
Why researchers looked
Probiotics are often assumed to prevent diarrhoea from antibiotics.
Traditional use
Not a traditional remedy: this is a modern probiotic strain studied in clinical trials.
Proposed mechanism Not established
Not applicable.
A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.
No safety signal reported in the abstract.
Side effects of H. pylori antibiotic treatment
Very low certaintyThe 2022 review says the strain lowered antibiotic side effects during H. pylori treatment and tended to raise eradication. Only one line of the review was read.
1 studiesL. reuteri DSM 17938 alongside antibiotics.
Studies, doses and limits
What the trials found
The 2022 review states a significant decrease in antibiotic-associated side effects and a tendency to higher eradication, without numbers in the abstract.
Results
A possible reduction in side effects; no numbers read.
Effect sizes as reported
No numbers in the abstract.
Why this rating
Only a summary sentence in a narrative review abstract was read; individual trials not checked.
Form and dose studied
L. reuteri DSM 17938 alongside antibiotics.
Who was studied
Patients treated for H. pylori.
Limits
No trial data read.
Why researchers looked
The strain survives stomach acid, so it was tried alongside antibiotic treatment of H. pylori.
Traditional use
Not a traditional remedy: this is a modern probiotic strain studied in clinical trials.
Proposed mechanism Not established
Not established.
A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.
Antibiotic plans must come from a doctor.
"General gut health" or microbiome balance
Not enough evidenceNo source read shows this strain improves general gut health in healthy people.
1 studiesNot applicable.
Studies, doses and limits
What the trials found
The 2018 review of 228 trials says benefits are strain-specific and disease-specific, so results should not be carried over from one condition or strain to another.
Results
Not shown. Trials looked at specific conditions in specific strains, not general gut health.
Effect sizes as reported
228 trials in the review.
Why this rating
No trial of this strain in healthy people was read.
Who was studied
Healthy people.
Limits
Marketing claims go beyond the trials read.
Why researchers looked
Probiotic labels often promise "gut balance".
Traditional use
Not a traditional remedy: this is a modern probiotic strain studied in clinical trials.
Proposed mechanism Not established
Not applicable.
A proposed mechanism does not show that the effect happens in people.
No new safety information.
Connections to the rest of health
How Lactobacillus reuteri connects to the rest of our health knowledge graph. Every link says what kind of connection it is. A safety link (for example to the liver) is a warning, not a benefit. A study that merely mentions a topic never creates a benefit link.
Explore every connection: goals, body systems, organs, symptoms, genes
A. Wellness goals
| Connected to | Kind of connection | Evidence status | Context | Studies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Digestive Support | Mixed findings | Infant colic in breastfed babies (strain DSM 17938): In breastfed babies with colic, pooled trials of one strain, L. reuteri DSM 17938, found less crying. A large community trial found no benefit, and the NHS says it is not recommended. Infant colic in formula-fed babies: For formula-fed babies there was no clear effect, and too little data to decide. | 9 7 2 8 1 16 15 14 13 | |
| Digestive Support | Not enough evidence | Preventing colic in newborns: Giving probiotics to newborns before colic starts has not been shown to prevent it. "General gut health" or microbiome balance: No source read shows this strain improves general gut health in healthy people. | 5 4 | |
| Digestive Support | Very low certainty | Acute diarrhoea in children: One strain (DSM 17938) may shorten diarrhoea a little in children, but medical guidelines give it only a weak recommendation on very low-quality evidence. | 10 3 13 12 | |
| Oral Health | Low certainty | Gum disease (chronic periodontitis), as an add-on to dental cleaning: Lozenges added to a deep dental clean gave a little more improvement in some trials. Evidence is limited. | 11 6 | |
| Digestive Support | Low certainty | Preventing antibiotic-associated and hospital-acquired diarrhoea in children: A 2022 review says the strain does not seem to prevent these types of diarrhoea in children. Side effects of H. pylori antibiotic treatment: The 2022 review says the strain lowered antibiotic side effects during H. pylori treatment and tended to raise eradication. Only one line of the review was read. | 3 4 |
B. Body systems
| Connected to | Kind of connection | Evidence status | Context | Studies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Digestive System | Biological association | Mixed findings | Studied for: Infant colic in breastfed babies (strain DSM 17938) Studied for: Infant colic in formula-fed babies | 9 7 2 8 1 16 15 5 10 3 13 12 14 4 |
| Mouth And Gums | Biological association | Low certainty | Studied for: Gum disease (chronic periodontitis), as an add-on to dental cleaning | 11 6 |
E. Health conditions
| Connected to | Kind of connection | Evidence status | Context | Studies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blood infection | Adverse effect or risk | Documented risk | Regulator warning about invasive infection in preterm babies given probiotics. Regulator warning for probiotics in preterm babies. Preparation or compound: Live probiotic products in preterm infants |
14 15 |
| Infantile colic | Mixed findings | Less crying in breastfed babies in pooled trials of DSM 17938; a large community trial found no benefit. Preparation or compound: L. reuteri DSM 17938 drops |
9 8 | |
| Chronic periodontitis | Preliminary | Small add-on benefit to dental cleaning; evidence limited. Preparation or compound: L. reuteri lozenges |
11 6 |
I. Biomarkers
| Connected to | Kind of connection | Evidence status | Context | Studies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Daily crying and fussing time | Biological association | Mixed findings | Measured in trials: shorter in breastfed trials; longer in one community trial. A lab change is not the same as a health benefit. | 9 8 |
| Treatment success (half the crying) | Biological association | Low certainty | Measured in trials: more babies responded in breastfed trials. A lab change is not the same as a health benefit. | 2 1 |
| Gum pocket depth and attachment | Biological association | Low certainty | Measured in trials: smaller pockets, more attachment gain. A lab change is not the same as a health benefit. | 11 6 |
| Necrotizing enterocolitis and feeding intolerance in preterm babies | Biological association | Low certainty | Measured in trials: lower in the pooled trials. A lab change is not the same as a health benefit. | 1 14 |
K. Biological pathways
L. Active compounds
| Connected to | Kind of connection | Evidence status | Context | Studies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reuterin and other secreted substances | Biological association | Preclinical | The 2022 review says the species secretes reuterin and other substances that inhibit pathogens and interact with gut bacteria and lining. | 3 |
Each connection is stored with the ingredient, the connected record, the kind of connection, the evidence status, the supporting studies, the preparation or compound involved, and a review date (last reviewed October 26, 2026).
Evidence at a glance: what the research found for 9 outcomes
Each outcome below is one thing researchers measured. Certainty is how far the evidence can be trusted, not how well it works. The full studies are on the next tab.
The evidence
The research centre for Lactobacillus reuteri. Every record here was checked against PubMed or the publisher's page; we never list a study we have not verified.
Evidence by outcome
Bars show how many studies we found for each outcome, not how well it works. People are added up across trials only (reviews are not added, to avoid double counting).
How we rate evidence
High certainty
Several well-run trials or reviews agree; further research is unlikely to change the picture much.
Moderate certainty
Good trials point the same way, but some doubt remains.
Low certainty
Small, short or inconsistent trials. The finding could change with better research.
Very low certainty
Very little or very weak human data. Treat as a possibility only.
Mixed findings
Trials or reviews disagree with each other.
Not enough evidence
Not enough human research to say either way.
Evidence against
Good research found no benefit, or found harm.
We take the reviewers' own risk-of-bias and GRADE statements where they exist, and otherwise judge from study size, design, consistency, directness and whether a product matches what is sold. Many publications do not make evidence high. Method note: We started from our existing summary, re-read PubMed abstracts for every study cited, and read the NCCIH, NHS and FDA pages. Only abstracts were read for studies. The AGA documents had no abstract and the journal page was blocked, so they are marked unread.
Study library: every study we checked 17
| Study | Design | People | Product, dose, length | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bianchi 2026 Efficacy of Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 in preterm newborns and infants with colic: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Nutrition · PMID 42485904 · DOI |
Systematic review meta analysis |
555 colic infants (11 trials); 1704 preterm (8 trials) Infants 0 to 12 months with colic; preterm newborns |
L. reuteri DSM 17938 (single strain) Live bacteria (probiotic) Varied Varied · vs Placebo |
In colic the probiotic raised treatment response and cut crying time. In preterm babies it lowered feeding intolerance and NEC, with earlier full feeds and shorter stay; no effect on sepsis and no safety concerns in the trials. The authors call for more trials. Colic response OR 6.98; crying time SMD -2.61; feeding intolerance OR 0.57; NEC OR 0.49 (Response 95% CI 2.26 to 21.59; crying -3.98 to -1.24; intolerance 0.42 to 0.79; NEC 0.31 to 0.77) Methods, limits and fundingOutcomes: Colic response; feeding intolerance, NEC, sepsis in preterms Limitations: Very wide interval on colic response; trial quality and bias not given in the abstract; the earlier large negative community trial may be pooled differently. Abstract read only. Funding and conflicts: Funding is not stated in the abstract. Read: abstract |
| Chau 2015 Probiotics for infantile colic: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938. J Pediatr · PMID 25444531 · DOI |
Randomised controlled trial |
52 Breastfed Canadian infants with colic |
L. reuteri DSM 17938 Live bacteria (probiotic) 10^8 colony-forming units a day (studied in the trial) 21 days · vs Placebo |
Total crying and fussing time was shorter with the probiotic. More babies had at least half their crying time cut (17 vs 6). Total crying/fussing 29 vs 37 hours (P=.028); responder RR 3.3 (Total time RR 0.78 (0.58 to 0.98); responder RR 3.3 (1.55 to 7.03)) Methods, limits and fundingOutcomes: Crying and fussing time; responders; adverse events Limitations: Small single-country trial; breastfed babies only. Funding and conflicts: Funding is not stated in the abstract. Read: abstract |
| Dargenio 2022 Use of Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 in paediatric gastrointestinal disorders: an updated review. Benef Microbes · PMID 35212258 · DOI |
Narrative review |
Not applicable Children with gut disorders |
L. reuteri DSM 17938 Live bacteria (probiotic) |
The strain can shorten acute diarrhoea and hospital stay but does not seem to prevent hospital-acquired or antibiotic-associated diarrhoea. In H. pylori treatment it lowered antibiotic side effects with a tendency to raise eradication. The authors describe its safety as excellent. No numbers in the abstract (Not applicable) Methods, limits and fundingOutcomes: Colic, regurgitation, abdominal pain, constipation, diarrhoea, H. pylori side effects Limitations: Narrative (not systematic) review, abstract read only; authors' safety statement is a summary of trials. Funding and conflicts: Funding not stated in the abstract. Read: abstract |
| McFarland 2018 Strain-Specificity and Disease-Specificity of Probiotic Efficacy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Med · PMID 29868585 · DOI |
Systematic review meta analysis |
228 trials Trials of identified probiotic strains |
Many strains, including L. reuteri 55730 Live bacteria (probiotic) · vs Placebo |
Efficacy was both strain-specific and disease-specific. Examples show one strain working for a use while others of the same species did not. 228 trials (Not applicable) Methods, limits and fundingOutcomes: Whether efficacy depends on strain and disease Limitations: Reviews that pool different probiotics can mislead; abstract read only. Funding and conflicts: Funding is not stated in the abstract. Read: abstract |
| Ong 2019 Probiotics to prevent infantile colic. Cochrane Database Syst Rev · PMID 30865287 · DOI |
Systematic review meta analysis |
1886 in 6 trials Newborns under 1 month without colic at the start; 6 randomised trials |
Various probiotics; 2 of the 6 trials tested L. reuteri DSM Live bacteria (probiotic) Varied Varied · vs Placebo |
No difference in new cases of colic (low-certainty evidence) and no difference in serious adverse effects (low-certainty). New colic cases RR 0.46 (3 trials, 1148 babies) (95% CI 0.18 to 1.19; I2 72%) Methods, limits and fundingOutcomes: New cases of colic; serious adverse effects Limitations: Mixed probiotics; only 2 trials used L. reuteri; read from the abstract only. Funding and conflicts: Funding is not stated in the abstract. Read: abstract |
| Ram 2024 Clinical effects of Lactobacillus reuteri probiotic in chronic periodontitis - a systematic review. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci · PMID 38497853 · DOI |
Systematic review |
369 in 11 studies Adults 18 to 70 with chronic periodontitis |
L. reuteri as an add-on to scaling and root planing Live bacteria (probiotic) Varied Varied · vs Placebo or cleaning alone |
8 of 11 studies found significantly better pocket depth and 7 better attachment; 3 and 4 found no significant gain. Risk of bias was high in 4 studies and had some concerns in 7. The authors say evidence is limited. 8/11 studies better for pocket depth; 7/11 for attachment (Not given in abstract) Methods, limits and fundingOutcomes: Pocket depth; clinical attachment levels Limitations: High or uncertain risk of bias in all 11 studies; strains differ. Funding and conflicts: Funding is not stated in the abstract. Read: abstract |
| Savino 2010 Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 in infantile colic: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Pediatrics · PMID 20713478 · DOI |
Randomised controlled trial |
50 randomised, 46 completed Exclusively breastfed infants with colic (Wessel criteria) |
L. reuteri DSM 17938 Live bacteria (probiotic) 10^8 colony-forming units a day (studied in the trial) 21 days · vs Placebo |
Crying fell more with the probiotic by day 21 (median 35 vs 90 minutes a day, P=.022). More responders on days 7, 14 and 21. No adverse events related to the supplement were seen. Day 21 median crying 35 vs 90 minutes a day; responders day 21: 24 vs 15 (P values only in the abstract (P=.022 day 21 crying; P=.036 responders)) Methods, limits and fundingOutcomes: Daily crying time; responders (50% less crying); stool bacteria; side effects Limitations: Small trial; breastfed babies only. Funding and conflicts: Funding is not stated in the abstract. Read: abstract |
| Sung 2014 Treating infant colic with the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri: double blind, placebo controlled randomised trial. BMJ · PMID 24690625 · DOI |
Randomised controlled trial |
167 (127 analysed for the main result) Breastfed and formula-fed infants under 3 months with colic, Melbourne community sample |
L. reuteri DSM 17938 Live bacteria (probiotic) 10^8 colony-forming units a day (studied in the trial) 1 month · vs Placebo |
No benefit. At 1 month the probiotic group cried or fussed 49 minutes more than placebo, mostly more fussing, especially in formula-fed babies. Other outcomes were similar. No study-related adverse events. Probiotic group 49 minutes more cry/fuss per day (P=0.02) (95% CI 8 to 90 minutes) Methods, limits and fundingOutcomes: Daily cry or fuss time at 1 month Limitations: One country; 24% not retained to the main outcome. The authors say the findings do not support a general recommendation of probiotics for colic. Funding and conflicts: Trial registered ISRCTN95287767. Funding is not stated in the abstract. Read: abstract |
| Sung 2018 Lactobacillus reuteri to Treat Infant Colic: A Meta-analysis. Pediatrics · PMID 29279326 · DOI |
Systematic review meta analysis |
345 4 double-blind placebo-controlled trials in infants with colic (174 probiotic, 171 placebo) |
L. reuteri DSM 17938 (single strain) Live bacteria (probiotic) Trial amounts varied; see the original trials 21 days · vs Placebo |
Less crying and fussing with the probiotic at all time points. Success was almost twice as likely. The effect was large in breastfed babies and not significant in formula-fed babies, where data were too few to conclude. Day 21 adjusted mean difference in change from baseline -25.4 minutes; success incidence ratio 1.7; number needed to treat in breastfed babies 2.6 (Mean difference 95% CI -47.3 to -3.5; incidence ratio 95% CI 1.4 to 2.2; NNT 95% CI 2.0 to 3.6) Methods, limits and fundingOutcomes: Crying and/or fussing time; treatment success at day 21 Limitations: Only 4 trials; individual-patient data; formula-fed data too few; the 2014 Melbourne trial (negative) was a later-published community trial not shown to change this pooled result in the abstract. Read from the abstract only. Funding and conflicts: Funding is not stated in the abstract. Read: abstract |
| Szajewska 2014 Use of probiotics for management of acute gastroenteritis: a position paper by the ESPGHAN Working Group for Probiotics and Prebiotics. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr · PMID 24614141 · DOI |
Guideline |
Not applicable Previously healthy infants and children with acute gastroenteritis |
Several probiotics; L. reuteri DSM 17938 is one Live bacteria (probiotic) |
L. reuteri DSM 17938: very low quality of evidence, weak recommendation. Stronger (low-quality evidence, strong recommendation) for L. rhamnosus GG and Saccharomyces boulardii. Not applicable (Not applicable) Methods, limits and fundingOutcomes: Recommendations on probiotics added to rehydration Limitations: A 2014 position paper; newer trials are not covered. Read from the abstract only. Funding and conflicts: Position paper of a medical society group; funding not stated in the abstract. Read: abstract |
| Teughels 2013 Clinical and microbiological effects of Lactobacillus reuteri probiotics in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: a randomized placebo-controlled study. J Clin Periodontol · PMID 24164569 · DOI |
Randomised controlled trial |
30 Adults with chronic periodontitis having a deep clean (scaling and root planing) |
L. reuteri-containing lozenges (strain not named in the abstract) Live bacteria (probiotic) Lozenges twice a day (studied in the trial) 12 weeks · vs Placebo lozenges |
All measures improved in both groups. In moderate and deep pockets there was more pocket-depth reduction and attachment gain with the probiotic, and more reduction in Porphyromonas gingivalis. Significantly more pocket-depth reduction and attachment gain (p<0.05); numbers not in abstract (Not given in abstract) Methods, limits and fundingOutcomes: Pocket depth, attachment, gum bacteria Limitations: Only 15 people per group; short; strain not named in the abstract. Funding and conflicts: Funding is not stated in the abstract. Read: abstract |
| s-aga-gl AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on probiotics in gastrointestinal disorders (Gastroenterology 2020; PMID 32531291) · Source |
Guideline n/a |
Methods, limits and fundingRead: title-only | ||
| s-aga-tr AGA Technical Review on probiotics in gastrointestinal disorders (Gastroenterology 2020; PMID 32531292) · Source |
Systematic review meta analysis n/a |
Methods, limits and fundingRead: title-only | ||
| s-fda-2023 FDA: Risk of Invasive Disease in Preterm Infants Given Probiotics Formulated to Contain Live Bacteria or Yeast (content current as of 2023-09-29) · Source |
Regulator statement n/a |
Methods, limits and fundingRead: full-text | ||
| s-nccih NCCIH: Probiotics: Usefulness and Safety (marked last updated August 2019, cites a 2023 FDA warning) · Source |
Reference database n/a |
Methods, limits and fundingRead: full-text | ||
| s-nhs-colic NHS: Colic (last reviewed 26 April 2022) · Source |
Reference database n/a |
Methods, limits and fundingRead: full-text | ||
| s-nhs-probiotics NHS: Probiotics (last reviewed 24 November 2022) · Source |
Reference database n/a |
Methods, limits and fundingRead: full-text |
What we do not know yet
- Adult uses of L. reuteri were not researched.
- The AGA guideline and technical review could not be read, so their statements are not used.
- Food sources and amounts were not researched.
- No source gave pregnancy, breastfeeding or antibiotic-interaction rules.
- No lab survey of product contents was read.
- Which strains other than DSM 17938 help colic was not shown.
How new research is added
New studies are found by a saved PubMed search and placed in a review queue before the page changes.
Lab markers
What changed in blood or saliva tests during trials. A changed number is not the same as feeling or being healthier, and we give no "normal ranges".
Other 4
Daily crying and fussing time
Shorter in breastfed trials; longer in one community trial in trials
Minutes per day a baby cries or fusses, usually recorded in a parent diary.
Mixed findingsResults and what it means
Why it was measured
To see whether the probiotic shortens crying.
Statistical vs. clinical meaning
Trials point in different directions.
Safety implication
No harm related to the supplement was reported.
Treatment success (half the crying)
More babies responded in breastfed trials in trials
Share of babies whose crying time fell by at least half.
Low certaintyResults and what it means
Why it was measured
To count how many babies clearly improved.
Statistical vs. clinical meaning
Wide intervals; babies with colic often improve on their own with time.
Safety implication
No harm related to the supplement was reported.
Gum pocket depth and attachment
Smaller pockets, more attachment gain in trials
How deep the gap between tooth and gum is, and how firmly the gum holds the tooth.
Low certaintyResults and what it means
Why it was measured
To see whether lozenges help gums heal after a deep clean.
Statistical vs. clinical meaning
Small and mixed.
Safety implication
No safety concern reported in the abstracts.
Necrotizing enterocolitis and feeding intolerance in preterm babies
Lower in the pooled trials in trials
NEC is a serious gut injury in premature babies. Feeding intolerance means a baby cannot take milk feeds well.
Low certaintyResults and what it means
Why it was measured
To see whether the probiotic lowers these hospital complications.
Statistical vs. clinical meaning
Hospital setting; regulator warns against routine use.
Safety implication
FDA warns of invasive infection risk in preterm babies given probiotics.
| Study | Result | People | Product |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NEC OR 0.49 (0.31 to 0.77); feeding intolerance OR 0.57 (0.42 to 0.79) | 8 trials, 1704 preterm babies | L. reuteri DSM 17938 |
Safety
What studies and official sources say about side effects, medicines and who should check first. Each point shows what kind of evidence it comes from.
Main points to know 4
- Premature babies and very sick people: risk of serious infection. The FDA (2023) warns that preterm babies given probiotics with live bacteria or yeast can get invasive, potentially fatal infections. NCCIH says harm is more likely in people with severe illness or a weakened immune system, and cases of severe or fatal infection in premature babies have been reported. The death in the FDA notice involved a Bifidobacterium longum product, not L. reuteri, but the warning covers probiotics in general. This is for the hospital team to decide. Regulator warning 14 15
- Short-term safety in healthy full-term babies looks good, long-term is unknown. NCCIH reports no harmful effects in a review of 4 colic studies of this strain (345 babies). The two trials read here reported no supplement-related adverse events. Long-term effects are uncertain. Trial reports and authoritative guidance 15 7 8
- Product contents may not match the label. The NHS says probiotics are classed as food, so you cannot always be sure a product has what the label says. NCCIH says some products contain other organisms than listed, which can be a serious risk in some cases. Authoritative guidance 17 15
- Strain matters. Benefit seen for one strain (DSM 17938) cannot be assumed for a product that only says "L. reuteri". Systematic review 4
Side effects 4
| Effect | How often | Severity and recovery | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| No supplement-related adverse events in colic trials Short trials in healthy full-term babies. | None reported in the Savino 2010 and Sung 2014 trials; NCCIH: no harmful effects in a review of 4 colic studies (345 babies) | Not applicable Not applicable | Randomised trials and authoritative guidance 7 8 15 |
| More fussing in one trial This is a lack of benefit rather than a reported side effect. | Melbourne trial: probiotic group cried or fussed 49 minutes more per day at 1 month (95% CI 8 to 90) | Mild Not reported | Randomised trial 8 |
| Invasive infection (blood infection) in preterm or very ill people NCCIH lists possible infections, harmful substances made by the microbes, and transfer of antibiotic-resistance genes. | No frequency found; FDA 2023 reports a fatal case with a B. longum product | Can be fatal Not applicable | Regulator warning and case reports 14 15 |
| No serious side effects in otherwise healthy children Few studies looked at safety in detail, so how often and how bad side effects can be is not well known. | NCCIH: none observed apart from the illness being treated | Not applicable Not applicable | Authoritative guidance 15 |
Liver
No liver injury from this strain was found in the sources read. No liver-safety reference was searched.
How often. No frequency was found.
Monitoring. No agency monitoring advice was found.
This is a safety connection. It is not evidence that Lactobacillus reuteri supports liver health.
Medicines and supplements 3
| With | Why it matters | Importance | Evidence | What to do |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Medicines that weaken the immune system (for example chemotherapy or transplant drugs) prescription | Live organisms can enter the blood when defences are low (NCCIH). | NCCIH says harm is greater in people with a weakened immune system and they should be monitored closely. | Authoritative guidance Low certainty 15 | Ask the treating doctor before any probiotic. |
| Antibiotics prescription | Not established. Antibiotics could in theory kill live bacteria. | No source read gave an interaction rule for L. reuteri and antibiotics. The 2022 review describes it being used alongside antibiotics in H. pylori treatment. | Not found Not enough evidence 3 | Ask a pharmacist about timing. |
| Other supplements and herbs supplement | Not researched. | No interaction evidence was found. | Not found Not enough evidence | Ask a pharmacist. |
Who should check first 4
| Situation | Advice | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Premature babies and seriously ill hospital patients | Only a hospital team should weigh benefit and risk (NCCIH, FDA). | Authoritative guidance 14 15 |
| Weakened immune system or serious underlying illness | NCCIH says people with a serious condition should be monitored closely; the NHS says to talk to a doctor first. | Authoritative guidance 15 17 |
| Pregnancy and breastfeeding | No source read covered L. reuteri in pregnancy or breastfeeding. Babies in colic trials received it directly. Ask a doctor. | Not found |
| Children and babies | The NHS says probiotic supplements are not recommended for colic. Always speak to a health visitor or doctor first. | Authoritative guidance 16 |
Overdose, product quality and regulators
Summary. This strain has an extensive history of apparently safe use in healthy people (NCCIH), with the exceptions above.
Animal. Not reviewed.
High dose or long term signals. The 2022 review calls the safety of DSM 17938 excellent even at higher amounts; this is the authors' summary and long-term effects in babies are uncertain per NCCIH.
Overdose response. Not researched.
Genotoxicity. Not researched.
Label accuracy is a known problem for probiotics in general.
Product contents. The NHS says you cannot always be sure a product has the bacteria listed, enough of them, or that they survive to reach the gut. NCCIH says some products contain other microorganisms than listed. The FDA says unapproved probiotics are not reviewed before sale and may not be tested for stray organisms. 17 15 14
| Body | Action | Date |
|---|---|---|
| FDA (US) (United States) | Warned on 2023-09-29 about invasive, potentially fatal disease in preterm infants given probiotics with live bacteria or yeast; says avoid routine use in preterm infants, especially under 1000 g, and that no probiotic is FDA-approved for infants. source | 2023-09-29 |
| NHS (UK) (United Kingdom) | Says anti-colic drops, herbal and probiotic supplements are not recommended and there is no evidence they help colic (reviewed 2022-04-26). Says probiotics are generally classed as food. source | 2022-04-26 |
| NCCIH (US NIH) (United States) | Says probiotics have an extensive history of apparently safe use in healthy people; risk is greater in severe illness or weakened immunity; premature infants need careful weighing of benefit and risk. source | 2019-08 |
When to get medical help
- A premature or very sick baby who is given a probiotic and develops fever, poor feeding, floppiness or breathing trouble: tell the medical team at once.
- Any person with a weak immune system or central line who develops fever or chills after starting a probiotic: seek urgent care.
- A baby with a weak or high-pitched cry, or a cry that does not sound normal (NHS): go to A&E or call 999.
- A baby who is not growing or gaining weight, or colic that continues after 4 months: see a doctor (NHS).
Stop using the product and contact a clinician or emergency service. In the US, Poison Control is 1-800-222-1222.
General information only, not medical advice. Ask a clinician or pharmacist before use, especially with medicines, in pregnancy or with a health condition. See the Natural Remedy Safety guide.
Frequently asked questions
What is Lactobacillus reuteri?
Does it help infant colic?
Does it work for formula-fed babies?
Can it prevent colic?
Not shown. A Cochrane review found no clear difference in new cases of colic with probiotics given to newborns (low certainty).
Does it help children with diarrhoea?
Does it prevent diarrhoea from antibiotics?
A 2022 review says this strain does not seem to prevent antibiotic-associated diarrhoea in children.
Is it used for premature babies?
Can it help gum disease?
Is it safe?
Can I trust the label on a probiotic?
Does it improve general gut health?
No source read shows that. Trials looked at specific conditions in specific strains.
Should I give it to my baby?
Ask your doctor, health visitor or pharmacist first. The NHS says probiotic supplements are not recommended for colic, and crying that is unusual in sound needs urgent care.
Explore by health goal
Editorial transparency
- Written by
- AlternativeMed editorial team. Research compiled with AI assistance, then checked against the sources listed.
- Medical review
- None. This page has not been reviewed by a physician or pharmacist.
- First published
- 2026-10-26
- Last substantive update
- 2026-10-26
- How we research
- We started from our existing summary, re-read PubMed abstracts for every study cited, and read the NCCIH, NHS and FDA pages. Only abstracts were read for studies. The AGA documents had no abstract and the journal page was blocked, so they are marked unread.
- How we rate evidence
- See "How we rate evidence" in the Evidence tab.
- Independence
- No product is promoted on this page. No affiliate links are shown. Trials of probiotic products may have manufacturer links not stated in abstracts.
Sources 17
Each source was opened and checked. Where we read only the abstract, it says so. The small numbers in the text point here.
- Bianchi M, Quatrale G, Colecchia L, Cremon C et al.. Efficacy of Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 in preterm newborns and infants with colic: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.. Nutrition. 2026. PMID 42485904. DOI 10.1016/j.nut.2026.113327. (abstract)
- Chau K, Lau E, Greenberg S, Jacobson S et al.. Probiotics for infantile colic: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938.. J Pediatr. 2015. PMID 25444531. DOI 10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.09.020. (abstract)
- Dargenio VN, Cristofori F, Dargenio C, Giordano P et al.. Use of Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 in paediatric gastrointestinal disorders: an updated review.. Benef Microbes. 2022. PMID 35212258. DOI 10.3920/BM2021.0151. (abstract)
- McFarland LV, Evans CT, Goldstein EJC. Strain-Specificity and Disease-Specificity of Probiotic Efficacy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.. Front Med. 2018. PMID 29868585. DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00124. (abstract)
- Ong TG, Gordon M, Banks SS, Thomas MR et al.. Probiotics to prevent infantile colic.. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. PMID 30865287. DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD012473.pub2. (abstract)
- Ram J, Awan KH, Freitas CMT, Bhandi S et al.. Clinical effects of Lactobacillus reuteri probiotic in chronic periodontitis - a systematic review.. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2024. PMID 38497853. DOI 10.26355/eurrev_202403_35584. (abstract)
- Savino F, Cordisco L, Tarasco V, Palumeri E et al.. Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 in infantile colic: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.. Pediatrics. 2010. PMID 20713478. DOI 10.1542/peds.2010-0433. (abstract)
- Sung V, Hiscock H, Tang ML, Mensah FK et al.. Treating infant colic with the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri: double blind, placebo controlled randomised trial.. BMJ. 2014. PMID 24690625. DOI 10.1136/bmj.g2107. (abstract)
- Sung V, D'Amico F, Cabana MD, Chau K et al.. Lactobacillus reuteri to Treat Infant Colic: A Meta-analysis.. Pediatrics. 2018. PMID 29279326. DOI 10.1542/peds.2017-1811. (abstract)
- Szajewska H, Guarino A, Hojsak I, Indrio F et al.. Use of probiotics for management of acute gastroenteritis: a position paper by the ESPGHAN Working Group for Probiotics and Prebiotics.. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2014. PMID 24614141. DOI 10.1097/MPG.0000000000000320. (abstract)
- Teughels W, Durukan A, Ozcelik O, Pauwels M et al.. Clinical and microbiological effects of Lactobacillus reuteri probiotics in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: a randomized placebo-controlled study.. J Clin Periodontol. 2013. PMID 24164569. DOI 10.1111/jcpe.12155. (abstract)
- . AGA Clinical Practice Guidelines on probiotics in gastrointestinal disorders (Gastroenterology 2020; PMID 32531291). . . (title-only)
- . AGA Technical Review on probiotics in gastrointestinal disorders (Gastroenterology 2020; PMID 32531292). . . (title-only)
- . FDA: Risk of Invasive Disease in Preterm Infants Given Probiotics Formulated to Contain Live Bacteria or Yeast (content current as of 2023-09-29). . . (full-text)
- . NCCIH: Probiotics: Usefulness and Safety (marked last updated August 2019, cites a 2023 FDA warning). . . (full-text)
- . NHS: Colic (last reviewed 26 April 2022). . . (full-text)
- . NHS: Probiotics (last reviewed 24 November 2022). . . (full-text)
Where to buy
Check the label first. Whatever you buy, look for these:
- The amount of the active ingredient per serving, not just the front-label claim
- A third-party testing mark (USP, NSF or ConsumerLab)
- Other ingredients and allergens
- Ask a pharmacist about interactions with your medicines
Talk to a pharmacist or doctor before you start any supplement, especially if you take medicines. See the Safety tab for interactions.
Support our free guides: as an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Full disclosure.
