Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29033923›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2017

Emerging Trends in "Smart Probiotics": Functional Consideration for the Development of Novel Health and Industrial Applications.

Racha El Hage, Emma Hernandez-Sanabria, Tom Van de Wiele

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

72 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. mGem:mBio · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article

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

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

3 authors.

Racha El HageCenter for Microbial Ecology and Technology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Emma Hernandez-SanabriaCenter for Microbial Ecology and Technology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Tom Van de WieleCenter for Microbial Ecology and Technology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The link between gut microbiota and human health is well-recognized and described. This ultimate impact on the host has contributed to explain the mutual dependence between humans and their gut bacteria. Gut microbiota can be manipulated through passive or active strategies. The former includes diet, lifestyle, and environment, while the latter comprise antibiotics, pre- and probiotics. Historically, conventional probiotic strategies included a phylogenetically limited diversity of bacteria and some yeast strains. However, biotherapeutic strategies evolved in the last years with the advent of fecal microbiota transplant (FMT), successfully applied for treating CDI, IBD, and other diseases. Despite the positive outcomes, long-term effects resulting from the uncharacterized nature of FMT are not sufficiently studied. Thus, developing strategies to simulate the FMT, using characterized gut colonizers with identified phylogenetic diversity, may be a promising alternative. As the definition of probiotics states that the microorganism should have beneficial effects on the host, several bacterial species with proven efficacy have been considered next generation probiotics. Non-conventional candidate strains include

Indexed as

bacterial consortiumCDIFMTnext generation probioticssynthetic community

Identifiers

PMID29033923
PMCPMC5626839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.