ReviewTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2017
Systematic review and meta-analysis: the effects of fermented milk with
Review in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review: probiotics in the management of lower gastrointestinal symptoms - an updated evidence-based international consensus.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2018Pooled it
- Technological Innovation and Consumer Trust: Understanding Safety Perceptions in Next Generation Probiotic Development.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Bifidobacteria in Fermented Dairy Foods: A Health Beneficial Outlook.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2025Review
- Unveiling probiotic and prebiotic functional dairy foods: a health beneficial outlook.3 Biotech · 2025Review
- Review and Perspectives onMicroorganisms · 2023Review
- A narrative review on the use of probiotics in several diseases. Evidence and perspectives.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Review
- Lyophilized Symbiotic Mitigates Mucositis Induced by 5-Fluorouracil.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Impact of a Multistrain Probiotic Formulation with High Bifidobacterial Content on the Fecal Bacterial Community and Short-Chain Fatty Acid Levels of Healthy Adults.Microorganisms · 2020Article
- Emerging Priorities for Microbiome Research.Frontiers in microbiology · 2020Review
- Dissecting the Evolutionary Development of the SpeciesApplied and environmental microbiology · 2019Article
- Article
- Whey Protein Isolate-Supplemented Beverage, Fermented byFrontiers in microbiology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt has been suggested that probiotics may improve gastrointestinal discomfort. Not all probiotics exhibit the same effects and consequently meta-analyses on probiotics should be confined to well-defined strains or strain combinations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a probiotic fermented milk (PFM) that includes
methodsDouble-blind randomized controlled trials in the general adult population comparing PFM with a control dairy product for at least 4 weeks were searched from multiple literature databases (up to February 2015). Meta-analyses using random-effects models, with individual participant data were undertaken to calculate an odds ratio (OR) or standard mean difference (SMD), with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
resultsThe search strategy identified 12,439 documents. Overall, three trials with a total of 598 adults (female = 96.5%) met the inclusion criteria. Consumption of the PFM product was associated with a significant improvement in overall gastrointestinal discomfort compared with the control product (OR = 1.48; 95% CI 1.07-2.05), with a number needed to treat (NNT) of 10.24 (95% CI 5.64-55.93). PFM was also superior to the control in reducing digestive symptoms, as measured using a composite score (SMD = -0.21; 95% CI -0.37 to -0.05). Sensitivity analyses produced similar results, and the heterogeneity between studies was minimal.
conclusionsThis meta-analysis shows that the consumption of PFM with
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.