Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30586435›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2018

Choosing an appropriate probiotic product for your patient: An evidence-based practical guide.

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

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
124citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
18.5field-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.

NCT05226052 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Effect of the Use of Probiotic Saccharomyces Boulardii on Acute Viral Inflammatory Diarrhea Diagnosed With Multiplex PCR Technique, Randomized Clinical Trial (RCT).

TypeinterventionalSponsorInstituto Mexicano del Seguro SocialRan2020 to 2022Enrolled46ConditionsViral DiarrheaArmsSaccharomyces boulardii (Floratil 600mg), 3 capsules of placebo
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

124 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 251 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Probiotics for treating acute infectious diarrhoea.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Review

64 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jason C SniffenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Infectious Disease Section, Florida Hospital Orlando, Orlando, FL, United States of America.
Lynne V McFarlandDepartment of Medicinal Chemistry, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-9881-3453
Charlesnika T EvansDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Center for Healthcare Studies, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, United States of America.
Ellie J C GoldsteinRM Alden Research Laboratory and David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America.
AdventHealth Orlando · USNorthwestern University · 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

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

Evidence-Based MedicineHumansProbioticsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID30586435
PMCPMC6306248
OpenAlexW2905982611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

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.