Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29844409›Full record

Observational studyScientific reports2018

Probiotic supplementation and associated infant gut microbiome and health: a cautionary retrospective clinical comparison.

C Quin, M Estaki, D M Vollman, J A Barnett, S K Gill, D L Gibson

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Evaluating the Adjuvant Therapeutic Effects of Probiotic StrainsAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Evaluation ofThe World Allergy Organization journal · 2025
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

19 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

6 authors.

C QuinDepartment of Biology, University of British Columbia, Okanagan campus, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada.
M EstakiDepartment of Biology, University of British Columbia, Okanagan campus, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada.
D M VollmanDepartment of Biology, University of British Columbia, Okanagan campus, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada.
J A BarnettDepartment of Biology, University of British Columbia, Okanagan campus, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada.
S K GillDepartment of Biology, University of British Columbia, Okanagan campus, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada.
D L GibsonDepartment of Biology, University of British Columbia, Okanagan campus, Kelowna, BC, V1V 1V7, Canada. deanna.gibson@ubc.ca.

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While probiotics are a multi-billion dollar industry, there is little evidence to show that supplementing infants provides any health benefits. We conducted an observational study where 35 of 86 participating mothers self-administered probiotics during breastfeeding, as well as directly to their infants. The primary objective was to determine if probiotic exposure influenced the infants' fecal microbiome while the secondary objective assessed associated changes to the mothers' breast milk immunity and infant health. Analysis of infant fecal microbiome throughout the first 6 months of life revealed that probiotics were associated with higher abundances of Bifidobacterium at week 1 only. Short-chain fatty acid production and predicted metagenomic functions of the microbial communities were not altered. While probiotics did not alter breast milk immune markers, fecal sIgA responses were higher among probiotic supplemented infants. Surprisingly, this was not associated with better health outcomes, as the probiotic cohort had higher incidences of mucosal-associated illnesses as toddlers. This retrospective clinical comparison suggests that probiotic exposure during infancy has limited effects on gut microbial composition yet is associated with increased infection later in life. These correlative findings caution against probiotic supplementation during infancy until rigorous controlled follow-up studies determining their safety and efficacy have occurred.

Indexed as

AdultBifidobacteriumBreast FeedingDietary SupplementsFatty Acids, VolatileFecesFemaleGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansImmunoglobulin A, SecretoryInfantInfant, NewbornMaleMicrobiotaMilk, HumanMothersFatty Acids, VolatileImmunoglobulin A, Secretory

Identifiers

PMID29844409
PMCPMC5974413

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.