GuidelineGut microbes
Responders and non-responders to probiotic interventions: how can we improve the odds?
Guideline in Gut microbes. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Near transfer to an unrelated N-back task mediates the effect of N-back working memory training on matrix reasoning.Nature human behaviour · 2022Pooled it
- Modulating effects of microbiota on synbiotic intervention outcomes for microbiota-derived trimethylamine, trimethylamine N-oxide and indoxyl sulfate in healthy young medical students: insights from a 12-week randomized clinical trial.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Trial
- Lactiplantibacillus plantarum P9 for chronic diarrhea in young adults: a large double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.Nature communications · 2024Trial
- The effects of a multispecies probiotic on migraine and markers of intestinal permeability-results of a randomized placebo-controlled study.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2017Trial
- Trial
- The Role of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Revolutionizing Probiotic Research.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Probiotic Human Study Design and Reporting (PRODARE): Recommendations to Improve Research Practice.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Review
- Multi-Strain Probiotic Intervention Modestly Modulates Microbial Composition and Inflammatory Profile in Individuals with Long COVID.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Next-generation probiotics and engineered BEVs for precision therapeutics in osteoporosis.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Review
- A comprehensive review of synbiotics: an emerging paradigm in health promotion and disease management.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2024Review
- Identification of carbohydrate gene clusters obtained from in vitro fermentations as predictive biomarkers of prebiotic responses.BMC microbiology · 2024Article
- Dysbiotic Gut Microbiota-Derived Metabolites and Their Role in Non-Communicable Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Review article: the future of microbiome-based therapeutics.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2022Review
- Host Species Adaptation of Obligate Gut Anaerobes Is Dependent on Their Environmental Survival.Microorganisms · 2022Article
- Why Are Bifidobacteria Important for Infants?Microorganisms · 2022Review
- Probiotic Lactobacilli Do Not Protect Chickens againstMicroorganisms · 2022Article
- Integrated gut microbiome and metabolome analyses identified fecal biomarkers for bowel movement regulation byComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Article
- Mechanisms of Cognitive Impairment in Depression. May Probiotics Help?Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As with many clinical studies, trials using probiotics have shown clearly that some patients benefit from the treatment while others do not. For example if treatment with probiotics leads to 36% cure rate of diarrhea, why did the other 64% not have the same result? The issue is important for human and indeed experimental animal studies for two main reasons: (i) Would changing the design of the study result in more subjects responding to treatment? (ii) If a subject does not respond what are the mechanistic reasons? In order to tackle the issue of responders and non-responders to therapy, a workshop was held by the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP). The outcome was four recommendations. 1. Clearly define the end goal: this could be supporting a health claim or having the highest clinical effect and impact. 2. Design the study to maximize the chance of a positive response by identifying precise parameters and defining the level of response that will be tested. 3. Base the selection of the intervention on scientific investigations: which strain(s) and/or product formulation should be used and why. 4. Carefully select the study cohort: use biological or genetic markers when available to stratify the patient population before enrollment and decide at what point intervention will provide the best outcome (for example, in acute phase of disease, or during remission, with or without use of pharmaceutical agents). By following these recommendations and selecting an appropriate primary outcome, it is hoped that clinical data will emerge in the future that expands our knowledge of which probiotics benefits which subjects and by what mechanism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.