Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23152810›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2012

The effects of probiotic supplementation on experimental acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Carlijn R Hooijmans, Rob B M de Vries, Maroeska M Rovers, Hein G Gooszen, Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02318147 (Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in SAP（Severe Acute Pancreatitis）Patients With Infectious Complications), which is not on this map. Cited by 37 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02318147 phase1unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in SAP（Severe Acute Pancreatitis）Patients With Infectious Complications

TypeinterventionalSponsorThe First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang UniversityRan2016 to 2018Enrolled60ConditionsAcute Pancreatitis, Fecal Microbiota Transplantation, Bacterial Translocation, Infectious ComplicationsArmsFecal Microbiota Transplantation, The traditional treatment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Efficacy of glucocorticoids in rodents of severe acute pancreatitis: a meta-analysis.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2014
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. The Role of the Gut Microbiome in the Development of Acute Pancreatitis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Carlijn R HooijmansRadboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, SYRCLE at Central Animal Laboratory, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. C.Hooijmans@cdl.umcn.nl
Rob B M de Vries
Maroeska M Rovers
Hein G Gooszen
Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn February 2008, the results of the PRObiotics in PAncreatitis TRIAl (PROPATRIA) were published. This study investigated the use of probiotics in patients suffering from severe acute pancreatitis. No differences between the groups were found for any of the primary endpoints. However, mortality in the probiotics group was significantly higher than in the placebo group. This result was unexpected in light of the results of the animal studies referred to in the trial protocol. We used the methods of systematic review and meta-analysis to take a closer look at the relation between the animal studies on probiotics and pancreatitis and the PROPATRIA-trial, focussing on indications for harmful effects and efficacy. METHODS AND

resultsBoth PubMed and Embase were searched for original articles concerning the effects of probiotics in experimental acute pancreatitis, yielding thirteen studies that met the inclusion criteria. Data on mortality, bacterial translocation and histological damage to the pancreas were extracted, as well as study quality indicators. Meta-analysis of the four animal studies published before PROPATRIA showed that probiotic supplementation did not diminish mortality, reduced the overall histopathological score of the pancreas and reduced bacterial translocation to pancreas and mesenteric lymph nodes. Comparable results were found when all relevant studies published so far were taken into account.

conclusionsA more thorough analysis of all relevant animal studies carried out before (and after) the publication of the study protocol of the PROPATRIA trial could not have predicted the harmful effects of probiotics found in the PROPATRIA-trial. Moreover, meta-analysis of the preclinical animal studies did show evidence for efficacy. It may be suggested, however, that the most appropriate animal experiments in relation to the design of the human trial have not yet been conducted, which compromises a fair comparison between the results of the animal studies and the PROPATRIA trial.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAnimalsBacterial TranslocationDisease Models, AnimalHumansLymph NodesMesenteryOdds RatioPancreatitisProbioticsPublication BiasRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID23152810
PMCPMC3496732
OpenAlexW1993767369

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.