Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28080206›Full record

ReviewGut microbes2017

Probiotics, D-Lactic acidosis, oxidative stress and strain specificity.

Luis Vitetta, Samantha Coulson, Michael Thomsen, Tony Nguyen, Sean Hall

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gut microbes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Probiotic properties ofFood science and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Influence of autochthonousFood chemistry: X · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Luis Vitettaa Sydney Medical School , The University of Sydney , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7490-9298
Samantha Coulsona Sydney Medical School , The University of Sydney , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5724-858X
Michael Thomsena Sydney Medical School , The University of Sydney , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1446-8221
Tony Nguyenb Medlab Clinical Ltd , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6459-6371
Sean Hallb Medlab Clinical Ltd , Sydney , New South Wales , Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0090-7895
The University of Sydney · AUNew South Wales Department of Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The existence of an implicit living microscopic world, composed primarily of bacteria, has been known for centuries. The exact mechanisms that govern the contribution of bacteria to human health and disease have only recently become the subject of intense research efforts. Within this very evident shift in paradigms, the rational design of probiotic formulations has led to the creation of an industry that seeks to progress the engineering of probiotic bacteria that produce metabolites that may enhance human host health and prevent disease. The promotion of probiotics is often made in the absence of quality scientific and clinically plausible data. The latest incursions into the probiotic market of claims have posited the amelioration of oxidative stress via potent antioxidant attributes or limiting the administration of probiotics to those species that do not produce D-Lactic acid (i.e., claims that D-Lactic acid acidosis is linked to chronic health conditions) or are strain-specific (shaping an industry point of difference) for appraising a therapeutic effect. Evidence-based research should guide clinical practice, as there is no place in science and medicine that supports unsubstantiated claims. Extravagant industry based notions continue to fuel the imprimatur of distrust and skepticism that is leveled by scientists and clinicians at an industry that is already rife with scientific and medical distrust and questionable views on probiotics. Ignoring scientifically discordant data, when sorting through research innovations and false leads relevant to the actions of probiotics, drives researcher discomfit and keeps the bar low, impeding the progress of knowledge. Biologically plausible posits are obligatory in any research effort; companies formulating probiotics often exhibit a lack of analytical understanding that then fuels questionable investigations failing to build on research capacity.

Indexed as

Oxidative StressAcidosis, LacticAnimalsHumansLactobacillaceaeProbioticsSpecies SpecificitybacteriaD-Lactateefficacyoxidative stressprobioticssafetystrain

Identifiers

PMID28080206
PMCPMC5570418
OpenAlexW2579373143

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.