Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29868585›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2018

Strain-Specificity and Disease-Specificity of Probiotic Efficacy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Lynne V McFarland, Charlesnika T Evans, Ellie J C Goldstein

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 318 papers, 18 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
318citing papers in PubMed, 18 pooled it
44.1field-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

318 citing papers in PubMed, 18 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 522 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Effects ofFrontiers in nutrition · 2026
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Efficacy and safety ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. BioMed research international · 2025
    Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Effect ofNutrients · 2026
    Trial
  20. Trial

258 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Lynne V McFarlandDepartment of Medicinal Chemistry, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA, United States.
Charlesnika T EvansDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Center for Healthcare Studies, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States.
Ellie J C GoldsteinRM Alden Research Laboratory, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States.
Edward Hines, Jr. VA Hospital · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · USUniversity of Washington Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the use and diversity of probiotic products expands, the choice of an appropriate type of probiotic is challenging for both medical care professionals and the public alike. Two vital factors in choosing the appropriate probiotic are often ignored, namely, the probiotic strain-specificity and disease-specificity for efficacy. Reviews and meta-analyses often pool together different types of probiotics, resulting in misleading conclusions of efficacy.

methodsA systematic review of the literature (1970-2017) assessing strain-specific and disease-specific probiotic efficacy was conducted. Trials were included for probiotics with an identifiable strain (either single strain or mixtures of strains) that had at least two randomized, controlled trials for each type of disease indication. The goal was to determine if probiotic strains have strain and/or disease-specific efficacy.

resultsWe included 228 trials and found evidence for both strain specificity and disease specificity for the efficacy of specific probiotic strains. Significant efficacy evidence was found for 7 (70%) of probiotic strain(s) among four preventive indications and 11 (65%) probiotic strain(s) among five treatment indications. Strain-specific efficacy for preventing adult antibiotic-associated diarrhea was clearly demonstrated within the

conclusionStrong evidence was found supporting the hypothesis that the efficacy of probiotics is both strain-specific and disease-specific. Clinical guidelines and meta-analyses need to recognize the importance of reporting outcomes by both specific strain(s) of probiotics and the type of disease. The clinical relevance of these findings indicates that health-care providers need to take these two factors into consideration when recommending the appropriate probiotic for their patient.

Indexed as

antibiotic-associated diarrheaClostridium difficiledisease specificityLactobacillusmeta-analysispooling dataprobiotic strainsSaccharomycesstrain specificity

Identifiers

PMID29868585
PMCPMC5949321
OpenAlexW2801213637

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.