SynthesisBMJ open2014
Use of probiotics to correct dysbiosis of normal microbiota following disease or disruptive events: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 113 papers, 8 of them syntheses 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
113 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy of Specific Probiotic Strains in Subtypes of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- The effect of oral synbiotics on the gut microbiota and inflammatory biomarkers in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Nutrition reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Meta-analytical insight on probiotic metabolites and inflammatory markers in diabetes.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- "Do probiotics mitigate GI-induced inflammation and perceived fatigue in athletes? A systematic review".Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2024Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotic Supplementation to Improve Perinatal Mental Health in Mothers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Pooled it
- Early life antibiotics and childhood gastrointestinal disorders: a systematic review.BMJ paediatrics open · 2021Pooled it
- Probiotics for cow's milk protein allergy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.European journal of pediatrics · 2019Pooled it
- Alterations in fecal microbiota composition by probiotic supplementation in healthy adults: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Genome medicine · 2016Pooled it
- Probiotic improves respiratory and gastrointestinal health, immune homeostasis, and gut microbiota composition in infants: a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Efficacy of multi-strain probiotic along with dietary and lifestyle modifications on polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled study.European journal of nutrition · 2022Trial
- Probiotics maintain the gut microbiome homeostasis during Indian Antarctic expedition by ship.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Safety and functional enrichment of gut microbiome in healthy subjects consuming a multi-strain fermented milk product: a randomised controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Trending ileal microbiome dysbiosis over time as an early assessment of intestinal transplant rejection risk.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2026Article
- Low-grade endotoxemia as an additional prothrombotic mechanism in adults with Fontan circulation.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2026Article
- Exploring the Therapeutic Potential of Diverse Bacterial Strains for Management of Periodontal Diseases.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Review
- Similar Symptoms, Distinct Syndromes: Multi-modal Approach to the Patient with an IBD-IBS Overlap.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Review
- Why Clinical Trials of Microbiome-Targeted Interventions Often Fail to Support Health Claims: A Commentary on Probiotics and Translational Design.Microorganisms · 2026Article
53 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the evidence for the claim probiotics can correct dysbiosis of the normal microbiota resulting from disease or disruptive events.
settingSystematic review of published clinical trials of patients receiving a probiotic intervention for the prevention or treatment of various diseases. DATA SOURCES: Sources searched (1985-2013): PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, AMED and ISI Web of Science. Three on-line clinical trial registries were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, MetaRegister of Controlled Trials and National Institutes of Health. REVIEW
methodsIncluded studies were randomised clinical trials of probiotic interventions having microbiological assays. Studies were evaluated following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for specific probiotic strains. A standard data extraction form was used to collect the raw data. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is the degree of microbiota correction by specific probiotic strains. Secondary outcome was the association between the degree of dysbiosis correction and clinical efficacy.
resultsThe review of the literature found three distinct study designs: model A (restoration) assayed patients enrolled with a healthy, undisturbed microbiota and then assayed postdisruptive event and probiotic therapy; model B (alteration) assayed patients with pre-existing disrupted microbiota and then postprobiotic therapy; model C (no dysbiosis) assayed volunteers with no disruptive event prebiotic and postprobiotic. From a total of 63 trials, 83% of the probiotic products using model A restored the microbiota, 56% using model B improved the microbiota and only 21% using model C had any effect on microbiota. Clinical efficacy was more commonly associated with strains capable of restoration of the normal microbiota.
conclusionsThe ability to assess the degree of dysbiosis improvement is dependent on the enrolled population and the timing of microbiological assays. The functional claim for correcting dysbiosis is poorly supported for most probiotic strains and requires further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42014007224).
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.