Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27250499›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2016

Probiotics and microbiota composition.

Mary Ellen Sanders

Registry-linked trialAbstract readEditorialComment
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05358301 (Novel Strategies for Obesity Prevention and Management With the Probiotic Lactiplantibacillus Plantarum IMC 510), which is not on this map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05358301 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Novel Strategies for Obesity Prevention and Management With the Probiotic Lactiplantibacillus Plantarum IMC 510 (PRO-Weight-Control Study)

TypeinterventionalSponsorAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria CareggiRan2022 to 2022Enrolled40ConditionsObesityArmsProbiotic, Placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Subacute 28-Day OECD-Guided Oral Toxicity Study ofJournal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. ProbioticsFrontiers in nutrition · 2022
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Lactobacillus Reuteri DSM 17938Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Effects of probioticThe Veterinary record · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Mary Ellen SandersDairy & Food Culture Technologies, 7119 S. Glencoe Ct., Centennial, CO, 80122, USA. mes@mesanders.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accumulated evidence, corroborated by a new systematic review by Kristensen et al. (Genome Med 8:52, 2016), suggests that probiotics do not significantly impact the fecal microbiota composition of healthy subjects. Nevertheless, physiological benefits have been associated with probiotic consumption by healthy people. Some studies have suggested that probiotics may impact the function of colonizing microbes, although this needs to be further studied. An alternative hypothesis is that probiotics may promote homeostasis of the gut microbiota, rather than change its composition. This hypothesis warrants investigation as a possible mechanism for how probiotics may benefit healthy people.Please see related article: http://genomemedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13073-016-0300-5 .

Indexed as

FecesGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHomeostasisHumansMicrobiotaProbioticsGut microbiotaHomeostasisLactobacillusMetagenomicsProbiotic

Identifiers

PMID27250499
PMCPMC4890251

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.