ArticleProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2013
Recovery of Viable Bacteria from Probiotic Products that Target Oral Health.
Article in Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibiotic resistance profiling and valorization of food waste streams to starter culture biomass and exopolysaccharides through fed-batch fermentations.Food science and biotechnology · 2023Article
- Assessing the drug resistance profiles of oral probiotic lozenges.Journal of oral microbiology · 2022Article
- The ecological community of commensal, symbiotic, and pathogenic gastrointestinal microorganisms - an appraisal.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2017Review
- Probiotics in dietary guidelines and clinical recommendations outside the European Union.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Probiotic therapy has predominantly been directed toward promoting and maintaining intestinal health. In recent years, however, probiotic regimens that target oral health have appeared on the market. These regimens are often delivered in the form of lozenges. Despite the oral health claims made by the manufacturers of these products, there is little independent evidence in the literature to support such claims. In theory, probiotic organisms can be beneficial by several different means including direct inhibition of pathogens and boosting of the host immune response, with the underlying assumption that these mechanisms require a critical number of viable organisms. In this study, five brands of probiotics marketed for oral health were tested for the recovery of viable bacteria. For only one brand could viable bacteria be recovered within one log of the manufacturer's stated starting amount of bacteria. Nearly a billion viable bacteria could be recovered from a lozenge of this brand. The other brands claimed similar starting amounts of bacteria at the time of manufacture but at least a three-log drop off was observed in the amount of viable bacteria recovered from those products. Refrigeration of the probiotics significantly improved the recovery for one brand, but recoveries for all but one brand remained below the recommended daily dosage for probiotic regimens. It is concluded that probiotic brands differ significantly in the quantities of bacteria that remain viable with most failing to meet recommended dosage targets.
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.