Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28640662›Full record

ReviewGut microbes2017

Using probiotics in clinical practice: Where are we now? A review of existing meta-analyses.

Mariangela Rondanelli, Milena Anna Faliva, Simone Perna, Attilio Giacosa, Gabriella Peroni, Anna Maria Castellazzi

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 79 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
39.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 198 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Therapeutic Effects of ProbioticFood science & nutrition · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mariangela Rondanellia Department of Applied Health Sciences, Azienda di Servizi alla Persona (ASP) di Pavia , University of Pavia , Pavia , Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8336-4851
Milena Anna Falivaa Department of Applied Health Sciences, Azienda di Servizi alla Persona (ASP) di Pavia , University of Pavia , Pavia , Italy.
Simone Pernaa Department of Applied Health Sciences, Azienda di Servizi alla Persona (ASP) di Pavia , University of Pavia , Pavia , Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2720-1473
Attilio Giacosab Department of Gastroenterology , Policlinico di Monza , Monza , Italy and Centro Diagnostico Italiano , Milan , Italy.
Gabriella Peronia Department of Applied Health Sciences, Azienda di Servizi alla Persona (ASP) di Pavia , University of Pavia , Pavia , Italy.
Anna Maria Castellazzic Castellazzi Department of Clinical Surgical Diagnostic and Pediatric Sciences , University of Pavia , Pavia , Italy.
University of Pavia · ITPoliclinico Universitario di Catania · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The scientific literature has demonstrated that probiotics have a broad spectrum of activity, although often the results are contradictory. This study provides a critical overview of the current meta-analyses that have evaluated the efficacy of probiotics in physiologic and pathological conditions, such as metabolic disease, antibiotic-associated and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea, IBS, constipation, IBD, chemotherapy-associated diarrhea, respiratory tract infection, ventilator-associated pneumonia, NAFLD, liver encephalopathy, periodontitis, depression, vaginosis, urinary tract infections, pancreatitis, incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia, hospital infection and stay in ICU, mortality of post-trauma patients, necrotising enterocolitis in premature infants. Only for antibiotic- and Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea, and respiratory tract infections the effects of probiotics are considered "evidence-based." Concerning other fields, meta-analyses lacks to define type and biologic effect of probiotic strains, as well as the outcome in a disease state. Therefore, the results presented should be a stimulus for further studies which will provide clinical recommendations.

Indexed as

Clinical Studies as TopicDiarrheaEvidence-Based PracticeHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicProbioticsRespiratory Tract Infectionscardiovascular diseasediabetesgastrointestinal diseaseinfectionsobesityprobiotics

Identifiers

PMID28640662
PMCPMC5730384
OpenAlexW2642229481

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.