Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31354938›Full record

ReviewF1000Research2019

Probiotics and prebiotics in clinical tests: an update.

Harald Brüssow

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in F1000Research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Probiotics for treating acute infectious diarrhoea.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Progress in interventions for vaginal microecology.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Pandemic preparedness-political perspectives.Sustainable microbiology · 2024
    Review
  15. Progress in the study of the correlation between sepsis and intestinal microecology.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  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

1 author.

Harald BrüssowLaboratory of Gene Technology, Department of Biosystems, KU Leuven University, Kasteelpark Arenberg 21, Leuven, 3001, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-4783-8583

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Probiotics have been explored in an exponentially increasing number of clinical trials for their health effects. Drawing conclusions from the published literature for the medical practitioner is difficult since rarely more than two clinical trials were conducted with the same probiotic strain against the same medical condition. Consequently, the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) made a few recommendations restricting it to probiotic use against acute gastroenteritis and antibiotic-associated diarrhea. Recent studies also made a strong case for probiotic use against sepsis in preterm and term infants from developing countries. Conclusions on the value of probiotics are best based on detailed meta-analyses (MA) of randomized controlled trials (RCT). Outcomes of MA are discussed in the present review for a number of gastroenterology conditions. Since these MA pool data from trials using different probiotic species, large RCT published sometimes come to different conclusions than MA including these studies. This is not necessarily a contradiction but may only mean that the specific probiotic species did not work under the specified conditions. Positive or negative generalization about probiotics and prebiotics should be avoided. Credible effects are those confirmed in independent trials with a specified probiotic strain or chemically defined prebiotic in a specified patient population under the specified treatment conditions. Even distinct technological preparations of the same probiotic strain might affect clinical outcomes if they alter bacterial surface structures. Underpowered clinical trials are another problem in the probiotic field. Data obtained with sophisticated omics technologies, but derived from less than ten human subjects should be interpreted with caution even when published in high impact journals.

Indexed as

GastroenteritisPrebioticsProbioticsSepsisChildDiarrheaHumansInfantInfant, NewbornPrebioticsBifidobacteriumdiarrheaLactobacillusprebioticprobioticsepsissynbiotic

Identifiers

PMID31354938
PMCPMC6652097

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.