Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31960202›Full record

SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2020

Preclinical Evidence of Probiotics in Colorectal Carcinogenesis: A Systematic Review.

Poliana Guiomar de Ameida Brasiel, Sheila Cristina Potente Dutra Luquetti, Maria do Carmo Gouveia Peluzio, Rômulo Dias Novaes, Reggiani Vilela Gonçalves

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Poliana Guiomar de Ameida BrasielDepartment of Nutrition and Health, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, MG, Brazil.
Sheila Cristina Potente Dutra LuquettiDepartment of Nutrition, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil.
Maria do Carmo Gouveia PeluzioDepartment of Nutrition and Health, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, MG, Brazil.
Rômulo Dias NovaesDepartment of Structural Biology, Federal University of Alfenas, Alfenas, MG, Brazil.
Reggiani Vilela GonçalvesDepartment of Animal Biology, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, MG, Brazil. reggysvilela@yahoo.com.br.ORCID 0000-0002-5831-3590
Universidade Federal de Viçosa · BRUniversidade Federal de Alfenas · BRUniversidade Federal de Juiz de Fora · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer, the second major cause of cancer deaths, imposes a major health burden worldwide. There is growing evidence that supports that the use of probiotics is effective against various diseases, especially in gastrointestinal diseases, including the colorectal cancer, but the differences between the strains, dose, and frequency used are not yet clear.

aimsTo perform a systematic review to compile the results of studies carried out in animal models and investigated the effect of probiotics on colorectal carcinogenesis.

methodsStudies were selected in PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Search filters were developed using three parameters: probiotics, colorectal cancer, and animal model.

resultsFrom a structured search, we discovered 34 original articles and submitted them to a risk of bias analysis using SYRCLE's tool. The studies show a great diversity of models, most were conducted in rats (55.8%) and used 1,2 dimethylhydrazine as the drug to induce colorectal carcinogenesis (61.7%). The vast majority of trials investigated Lactobacillus (64%) and Bifidobacterium (29.4%) strains. Twenty-six (86.6%) studies found significant reduction in lesions or tumors in the animals that received probiotics. The main methodological limitation was the insufficient amount of information for the adequate reproducibility of the trials, which indicated a high risk of bias due to incomplete characterization of the experimental design.

conclusionsThe different probiotics' strains showed anti-carcinogenic effect, reduced the development of lesions and intestinal tumors, antioxidant and immunomodulatory activity, and reduced fecal bacterial enzymes.

Indexed as

AnimalsCarcinogenesisColorectal NeoplasmsDisease Models, AnimalProbioticsAnimal modelCarcinogenesisColorectal neoplasmsProbioticsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31960202
OpenAlexW2998909866

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.