Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29704110›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2018

Systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety of probiotics in people with cancer.

Hadeel Hassan, M Rompola, A W Glaser, S E Kinsey, R S Phillips

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 6 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Microbiome-gut-brain axis in cancer treatment-related psychoneurological toxicities and symptoms: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Hadeel HassanDepartment of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds, UK. hadeelhassan@doctors.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8266-1659
M RompolaDepartment of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
A W GlaserDepartment of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
S E KinseyDepartment of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
R S PhillipsDepartment of Paediatric Haematology and Oncology, Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.

Funding

Department of Health PDF-2014-07-072Medical Research Council G0800472
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesProbiotics are living microorganisms that confer a health benefit on the host when administered. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the efficacy and safety of probiotics in adult and paediatric patients diagnosed with cancer.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken (PROSPERO registration: CRD42016050252). Randomised controlled trials (RCT), identified through screening multiple databases were included for analysis of efficacy. Non-randomised controlled trials and case reports were included for safety analysis. Outcomes included the reduction in the incidence and severity of diarrhoea, and adverse events. Where possible, data were combined for meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Planned subgroup analyses were not possible through marked heterogeneity of study characteristics.

resultsTwenty one studies (N = 2982 participants) were included for assessment of efficacy. Probiotics may reduce the incidence of diarrhoea in patients with cancer [odds ratio (OR) = 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.78, 95% prediction interval (PI) 0.3-0.92, I-sq 36.9%, 5 studies] and the duration of pyrexia [standardised mean difference 0.39 days, 95% CI 0.35-0.43, I-sq 0.01%, 5 studies]. Twenty five studies (N = 2242) were included in the safety analysis. Five case reports showed probiotic-related bacteraemia/fungaemia/positive blood cultures. Definitions and reporting of adverse events were variable and inconsistent.

conclusionsThere remain insufficient studies to assess the true effect of probiotics in people with cancer. Meta-analysis suggests probiotics may be beneficial but further studies are still required. Improved reporting of outcomes and adverse events in clinical trials are required to improve accuracy and confidence of conclusions drawn in future updates.

Indexed as

AdultChildDiarrheaHumansIncidenceNeoplasmsProbioticsCancerProbioticsRandomised controlled trials (RCT)

Identifiers

PMID29704110

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.