Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29310610›Full record

SynthesisBMC pregnancy and childbirth2018

Pregnancy outcomes in women taking probiotics or prebiotics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Alexander Jarde, Anne-Mary Lewis-Mikhael, Paul Moayyedi, Jennifer C Stearns, Stephen M Collins, Joseph Beyene, Sarah D McDonald

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC pregnancy and childbirth, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 70 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
8.8field-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

70 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 152 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Probiotics for preventing gestational diabetes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Gastrointestinal symptoms and disorders of gut-brain interaction in pregnancy.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2026
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

10 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alexander JardeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada. jarde@mcmaster.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-2951-9741
Anne-Mary Lewis-MikhaelDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.
Paul MoayyediDepartment of Medicine, Gastroenterology Division, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jennifer C StearnsFarncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Stephen M CollinsFarncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Joseph BeyeneDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Sarah D McDonaldDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.
McMaster University · CAPopulation Health Research Institute · CA

Funding

CIHR #950–229,920
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProbiotics are living microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit. It has been speculated that probiotics might help prevent preterm birth, but in two previous systematic reviews possible major increases in this risk have been suggested. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of preterm birth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women taking probiotics, prebiotics or synbiotics.

methodsWe searched six electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science's Core collection and BIOSIS Preview) up to September 2016 and contacted authors for additional data. We included randomized controlled trials in which women with a singleton pregnancy received a probiotic, prebiotic or synbiotic intervention. Two independent reviewers extracted data using a piloted form and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We used random-effects meta-analyses to pool the results.

resultsWe identified 2574 publications, screened 1449 non-duplicate titles and abstracts and read 160 full text articles. The 49 publications that met our inclusion criteria represented 27 studies. No study used synbiotics, one used prebiotics and the rest used probiotics. Being randomized to take probiotics during pregnancy neither increased nor decreased the risk of preterm birth < 34 weeks (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.29-3.64, I

conclusionsWe found no evidence that taking probiotics or prebiotics during pregnancy either increases or decreases the risk of preterm birth or other infant and maternal adverse pregnancy outcomes.

trial registrationWe prospectively published the protocol for this study in the PROSPERO database ( CRD42016048129 ).

Indexed as

PrebioticsPregnancy OutcomeDiabetes, GestationalFemaleHumansPregnancyPremature BirthProbioticsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicPrebioticsPrebioticsPregnancyPreterm birthProbioticsSynbiotics

Identifiers

PMID29310610
PMCPMC5759212
OpenAlexW2783018454

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.