Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31159409›Full record

ReviewNutrients2019

Analysis of Health Benefits Conferred by

Conor Slattery, Paul D Cotter, Paul W O'Toole

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrients, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 96 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

96 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Liposomal Delivery ofPharmaceutics · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

36 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.

Conor SlatterySchool of Microbiology and APC Microbiome Institute, University College Cork, Cork T12 Y337, Ireland. conorslattery1994@gmail.com.
Paul D CotterFood Research Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork P61 C996, Ireland. paul.cotter@teagasc.ie.
Paul W O'TooleSchool of Microbiology and APC Microbiome Institute, University College Cork, Cork T12 Y337, Ireland. pwotoole@ucc.ie.

Funding

Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine 14F828Horizon 2020 818368Science Foundation Ireland SFI/12/RC/2273
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Lactobacilli are among the most common microorganisms found in kefir; a traditional fermented milk beverage produced locally in many locations around the world. Kefir has been associated with a wide range of purported health benefits; such as antimicrobial activity; cholesterol metabolism; immunomodulation; anti-oxidative effects; anti-diabetic effects; anti-allergenic effects; and tumor suppression. This review critically examines and assesses these claimed benefits and mechanisms with regard to particular Lactobacillus species and/or strains that have been derived from kefir; as well as detailing further potential avenues for experimentation.

Indexed as

ProbioticsHumansKefirLactobacillusSpecies SpecificitykefirkefiranofacienskefiriLactobacillusplantarumprobiotic

Identifiers

PMID31159409
PMCPMC6627492

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.