Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31277101›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2019

Efficacy of different probiotic protocols in irritable bowel syndrome: A network meta-analysis.

Ding Liang, Ning Longgui, Xu Guoqiang

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Effect of Oral Intake ofNutrients · 2022
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Microbiome-Based Therapeutics for Insomnia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ding LiangDepartment of Gastroenterology, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China.
Ning Longgui
Xu Guoqiang
First Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProbiotics is a prevalence therapeutic method for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but there is lack of comparison in different protocols. We aim to differentiate the reasonable protocols by assessing the efficacy and safety through the combined way of traditional and network meta-analysis.

methodPubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from January 2006 to April 2019. The relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to combine dichotomous data of responders.

resultAmong 14 studies included 1695 patients were identified as suitable for inclusion. The proportion of responders was associated with the administration of multispecies probiotics (RR: 1.39; 95% CI: 1.19-1.61) and the dose of 10∼10 (RR: 2.08; 95% CI: 1.59-2.71). In network meta-analysis, the protocol of DUO had a significant effect for diarrhea type of IBS compared with placebo (RR: 7.46; 95% CI: 2.00-32.23). In the rest of 4 protocols, no significant difference was found in each other except F19 which appears inferior when compared with Pro (RR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.03-0.88). Meanwhile, Pro showed a superior effect for undifferentiated-type IBS compared with placebo (RR: 7.16; 95% CI: 1.72-29.89). No probiotics-associated severe adverse event was reported in included studies.

conclusionProbiotics is a safety choice to improve the overall symptoms for IBS patient. The protocols with suitable dose combined of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium can have prepotent effects compared with single species or over-dosage protocols. Network meta-analysis shows that DUO may be the first recommendation for diarrhea-type IBS. In the remaining 4 regimes of this study, Pro has a high rank for undifferentiated-type IBS.

Indexed as

BifidobacteriumHumansIrritable Bowel SyndromeLactobacillusProbioticsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID31277101
PMCPMC6635271
OpenAlexW2961913282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.