Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30219897›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of public health2019

Does probiotic consumption reduce antibiotic utilization for common acute infections? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sarah King, Daniel Tancredi, Irene Lenoir-Wijnkoop, Kelsie Gould, Hailey Vann, Grant Connors, Mary Ellen Sanders, Jeffrey A Linder, Andi L Shane, Dan Merenstein

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.6field-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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Is There Evidence to Support Probiotic Use for Healthy People?Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Sarah KingCambridge, UK.
Daniel TancrediUniversity of California, Davis, CA, USA.
Irene Lenoir-WijnkoopUniversity of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Kelsie GouldGeorgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Hailey VannGeorgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Grant ConnorsGeorgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Mary Ellen SandersInternational Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics.
Jeffrey A LinderNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Andi L ShaneEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Dan MerensteinGeorgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Georgetown University · USEmory University · USNorthwestern University · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUtrecht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOverall reduction of antibiotic use is a widely adopted public health goal. Given evidence that consuming probiotics reduce the incidence, duration and/or severity of certain types of common acute infections, we hypothesized that probiotics are associated with reduced antibiotic use. This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the impact of probiotic supplementation (any strain, dose or duration), compared to placebo, on antibiotic utilization for common, acute infections in otherwise healthy people of all ages.

methodsWe searched 13 electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to 17th January 2017. Backward and forward citation searches were also conducted. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted study data. We assessed risk of bias for individual studies using criteria adapted from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and the quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE system. Studies that evaluated similar outcomes were pooled statistically in meta-analyses using a random-effects model.

resultsWe screened 1533 citations, and of these, 17 RCTs met our predefined inclusion criteria. All 17 were conducted in infants and/or children with a primary aim of preventing acute respiratory tract infections, acute lower digestive tract infections or acute otitis media. Included studies used 13 probiotic formulations, all comprising single or combination Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium delivered in a range of food or supplement products. Mean duration of probiotic supplementation ranged from 4 days to 9 months. Trial quality was variable. Meta-analysis demonstrated that infants and children who received probiotics to prevent acute illnesses had a lower risk of being prescribed antibiotics, relative to those who received placebo (Pooled Relative Risk = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.94). When restricted to five studies with a low risk of bias, the pooled relative risk was 0.46 (95% CI: 0.23-0.97). Significant statistical heterogeneity was present in effect size estimates, which appeared to be due to one trial which could partly be considered as an outlier.

conclusionsProbiotics, provided to reduce the risk for common acute infections, may be associated with reduced antibiotic use in infants and children. Additional well-designed studies are needed to substantiate these findings in children and explore similar findings in other population groups.

Indexed as

Acute DiseaseAnti-Bacterial AgentsChildChild, PreschoolGastritisHumansInfantOtitis MediaProbioticsRespiratory Tract InfectionsAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID30219897
PMCPMC6532828
OpenAlexW2890695858

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.