ArticlePloS one2015
Public health and budget impact of probiotics on common respiratory tract infections: a modelling study.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fewer Community-Acquired Colds with Daily Consumption of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum HEAL9 and Lacticaseibacillus paracasei 8700:2. A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.The Journal of nutrition · 2021Trial
- Evaluation of the efficacy of Lactobacillus plantarum HEAL9 and Lactobacillus paracasei 8700:2 on aspects of common cold infections in children attending day care: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study.European journal of nutrition · 2020Trial
- Fermented Milk Consumption and Common Infections in Children Attending Day-Care Centers: A Randomized Trial.Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition · 2016Trial
- Comparative effectiveness of oral nutritional supplements in preventing respiratory tract infections among adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Food Supplements and Their Use in Elderly Subjects-Challenges and Risks in Selected Health Issues: A Narrative Review.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Is There Evidence to Support Probiotic Use for Healthy People?Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024Review
- Microbiota and probiotics: chances and challenges - a symposium report.Gut microbiome (Cambridge, England) · 2023Review
- Comparing technology and regulatory landscape of probiotics as food, dietary supplements and live biotherapeutics.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Selection of Probiotics in the Prevention of Respiratory Tract Infections and Their Impact on Occupational Health: Scoping Review.Nutrients · 2021Article
- Mechanisms linking the human gut microbiome to prophylactic and treatment strategies for COVID-19.The British journal of nutrition · 2021Review
- Potential contribution of beneficial microbes to face the COVID-19 pandemic.Food research international (Ottawa, Ont.) · 2020Article
- Probiotics Reduce Health Care Cost and Societal Impact of Flu-Like Respiratory Tract Infections in the USA: An Economic Modeling Study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2019Article
- Self-Care for Common Colds: The Pivotal Role of Vitamin D, Vitamin C, Zinc, andEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2018Review
- Impact of nasopharyngeal microbiota on the development of respiratory tract diseases.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2018Review
- The Clinical and Economic Impact of Probiotics Consumption on Respiratory Tract Infections: Projections for Canada.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTwo recent meta-analyses by the York Health Economics Consortium (YHEC) and Cochrane demonstrated probiotic efficacy in reducing the duration and number of common respiratory tract infections (CRTI) and associated antibiotic prescriptions. A health-economic analysis was undertaken to estimate the public health and budget consequences of a generalized probiotic consumption in France.
methodsA virtual age- and gender-standardized population was generated using a Markov microsimulation model. CRTI risk factors incorporated into this model were age, active/passive smoking and living in a community setting. Incidence rates and resource utilization were based on the 2011-2012 flu season and retrieved from the French GPs Sentinelles network. Results of both meta-analyses were independently applied to the French population to estimate CRTI events, assuming a generalized probiotic use compared to no probiotics during winter months: -0.77 days/CRTI episode (YHEC scenario) or odds-ratio 0.58 for ≥1 CRTI episode (Cochrane scenario) with vs. without probiotics. Economic perspectives were National Health System (NHS), society, family. Outcomes included cost savings related to the reduced numbers of CRTI episodes, days of illness, number of antibiotic courses, sick leave days, medical and indirect costs.
resultsFor France, generalized probiotic use would save 2.4 million CRTI-days, 291,000 antibiotic courses and 581,000 sick leave days, based on YHEC data. Applying the Cochrane data, reductions were 6.6 million CRTI days, 473,000 antibiotic courses and 1.5 million sick days. From the NHS perspective, probiotics' economic impact was about €14.6 million saved according to YHEC and €37.7 million according to Cochrane. Higher savings were observed in children, active smokers and people with more frequent human contacts.
conclusionsPublic health and budget impact of probiotics are substantial, whether they reduce CRTI episodes frequency or duration. Noteworthy, the 2011-12 winter CRTI incidence was low and this analysis focused on the fraction of CRTI patients consulting a practitioner.
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.