Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23543544›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2013

Prebiotics in infants for prevention of allergy.

David A Osborn, John K H Sinn

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 95 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
95citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
24.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

95 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 251 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Probiotics in infants for prevention of allergic disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Prebiotics for induction and maintenance of remission in ulcerative colitis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Dietary modifications for infantile colic.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Prebiotics in infants for prevention of allergy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

35 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David A OsbornCentralClinical School,Discipline ofObstetrics,Gynaecology andNeonatology,University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. david.osborn@email.cs.nsw.gov.au.
John K H Sinn
Royal North Shore Hospital · AUUniversity of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrebiotics (commonly oligosaccharides) added to infant feeds have the potential to prevent sensitisation of infants to dietary allergens.

objectivesTo determine the effect of prebiotic given to infants for the prevention of allergy. SEARCH

methodsWe performed an updated search in August 2012 of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 8), MEDLINE, EMBASE, conference proceedings, citations, expert informants and clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the use of a prebiotic to no prebiotic, or a specific prebiotic compared to a different prebiotic in infants for prevention of allergy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Assessment of trial quality, data extraction and synthesis of data were performed using the standard methods of The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN

resultsThe 2012 update identified 13 studies classified as ongoing or awaiting classification (yet to report allergy outcomes). Forty-three studies were excluded, primarily as no allergy data were reported, although none of these enrolled infants were at high risk of allergy. Four studies enrolling 1428 infants were eligible for inclusion. All studies were at high risk of attrition bias. Allergy outcomes were reported from four months to two years of age.Meta-analysis of two studies (226 infants) found no significant difference in infant asthma although significant heterogeneity was found between studies. Meta-analysis of four studies found a significant reduction in eczema (1218 infants, typical risk ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.97; typical risk difference -0.04, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.00; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 25, 95% CI 14 to > 100; P = 0.03). No statistically significant heterogeneity was found between studies. One study reported no significant difference in urticaria.No statistically significant subgroup differences were found according to infant risk of allergy or type of infant feed. However, individual studies reported a significant reduction in asthma and eczema from supplementation with a mixture of galacto- and fructo-oligosaccharide (GOS/FOS 9:1 ratio) (8 g/L) in infants at high risk of allergy; and in eczema from supplementation with GOS/FOS (9:1) (6.8 g/L) and acidic oligosacccharide (1.2 g/L) in infants not selected for allergy risk. AUTHORS'

conclusionsFurther research is needed before routine use of prebiotics can be recommended for prevention of allergy in formula fed infants. There is some evidence that a prebiotic supplement added to infant feeds may prevent eczema. It is unclear whether the use of prebiotic should be restricted to infants at high risk of allergy or may have an effect in low risk populations; or whether it may have an effect on other allergic diseases including asthma.

Indexed as

Infant FormulaPrebioticsAsthmaEczemaFood HypersensitivityHumansHypersensitivityInfantInfant, NewbornMilk HypersensitivityOligosaccharidesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUrticariaOligosaccharidesPrebiotics

Identifiers

PMID23543544
PMCPMC13655411
OpenAlexW2142871624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.