SynthesisPloS one2018
Choosing an appropriate probiotic product for your patient: An evidence-based practical guide.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05226052 (Effect of the Use of Probiotic Saccharomyces Boulardii on Acute Viral Inflammatory Diarrhea Diagnosed With Multiplex PCR Technique, Randomized Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 124 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Effect of the Use of Probiotic Saccharomyces Boulardii on Acute Viral Inflammatory Diarrhea Diagnosed With Multiplex PCR Technique, Randomized Clinical Trial (RCT).
Who cites it
124 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 251 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Orally Ingested Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotic Interventions as Countermeasures for Gastrointestinal Tract Infections in Nonelderly Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of Probiotic Supplementation on Gut Microbiota in Patients with Major Depressive Disorders: A Systematic Review.Nutrients · 2023Pooled it
- A Systematic Review on the Effects of Different Types of Probiotics in Animal Alzheimer's Disease Studies.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Pooled it
- Efficacy of Single-Strain Probiotics Versus Multi-Strain Mixtures: Systematic Review of Strain and Disease Specificity.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Probiotic, Prebiotic, and Synbiotic Supplementation to Improve Perinatal Mental Health in Mothers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Pooled it
- Probiotics for treating acute infectious diarrhoea.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis:Nutrients · 2019Pooled it
- Probiotic Supplementation Reduces RRTIs and Enhances Gut Microbial and Immunity in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Trial
- Multistrain probiotics alleviate gastrointestinal symptoms during bismuth quadruple therapy forWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2025Trial
- Adjudicative efficacy of Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BLa80 in treating acute diarrhea in children: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2024Trial
- Effectiveness of Saccharomyces Boulardii CNCM I-745 probiotic in acute inflammatory viral diarrhoea in adults: results from a single-centre randomized trial.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Validity and safety of ID-JPL934 in lower gastrointestinal symptom improvement.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Sequential laxative-probiotic usage for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a novel method inspired by mathematical modelling of the microbiome.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
- Safety and functional enrichment of gut microbiome in healthy subjects consuming a multi-strain fermented milk product: a randomised controlled trial.Scientific reports · 2020Trial
- Probiotics use for antibiotic-associated diarrhea: a pragmatic participatory evaluation in nursing homes.BMC gastroenterology · 2020Trial
- Age- and diet-driven assembly of the gut antibiotic resistome in humans and food-producing animals.Gut microbes · 2026Review
64 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinicians and patients face a daunting task when choosing the most appropriate probiotic for their specific needs. Available preparations encompass a diverse and continuously expanding product base, with most available products lacking evidence-based trials that support their use. Even when evidence exists, not all probiotic products are equally effective for all disease prevention or treatment indications. At this point in time, drug regulatory agencies offer limited assistance with regard to guidance and oversight in most countries, including the U.S.
methodsWe reviewed the current medical literature and sources on the internet to survey the types of available probiotic products and to determine which probiotics had evidence-based efficacy data. Standard medical databases from inception to June 2018 were searched and discussions with experts in the field were conducted. We graded the strength of the evidence for probiotics having multiple, randomized controlled trials and developed a guide for the practical selection of current probiotic products for specific uses.
resultsWe found the efficacy of probiotic products is both strain-specific and disease-specific. Important factors involved in choosing the appropriate probiotic include matching the strain(s) with the targeted disease or condition, type of formulation, dose used and the source (manufacturing quality control and shelf-life). While we found many probiotic products lacked confirmatory trials, we found sufficient evidence for 22 different types of probiotics from 249 trials to be included. For example, several types of probiotics had strong evidence for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea [Saccharomyces boulardii I-745, a three-strain mixture (Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, L. casei Lbc80r, L. rhamnosus CLR2) and L. casei DN114001]. Strong evidence was also found for four types of probiotics for the prevention of a variety of other diseases/conditions (enteral-feed associated diarrhea, travellers' diarrhea, necrotizing enterocolits and side-effects associated with H. pylori treatments. The evidence was most robust for the treatment of pediatric acute diarrhea based on 59 trials (7 types of probiotics have strong efficacy), while an eight-strain multi-strain mixture showed strong efficacy for inflammatory bowel disease and two types of probiotics had strong efficacy for irritable bowel disease. Of the 22 types of probiotics reviewed, 15 (68%) had strong-moderate evidence for efficacy for at least one type of disease.
conclusionThe choice of an appropriate probiotic is multi-factored, based on the mode and type of disease indication and the specific efficacy of probiotic strain(s), as well as product quality and formulation.
trial registrationThis review was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42018103979.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.