Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34394379›Full record

ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2021

Probiotics as a New Regulator for Bone Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Hanieh Malmir, Hanieh-Sadat Ejtahed, Ahmad-Reza Soroush, Amir Mohammad Mortazavian, Noushin Fahimfar, Afshin Ostovar, Ahmad Esmaillzadeh, Bagher Larijani, Shirin Hasani-Ranjbar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

9 authors.

Hanieh MalmirObesity and Eating Habits Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Hanieh-Sadat EjtahedObesity and Eating Habits Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6395-4915
Ahmad-Reza SoroushObesity and Eating Habits Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Amir Mohammad MortazavianDepartment of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Noushin FahimfarOsteoporosis Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Afshin OstovarOsteoporosis Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ahmad EsmaillzadehObesity and Eating Habits Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Bagher LarijaniEndocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Shirin Hasani-RanjbarObesity and Eating Habits Research Center, Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinical Sciences Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5670-3536

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the proposed role of the gut microbiota-bone axis, findings on the association between probiotic consumption and bone health are conflicting. This systematic review aimed to assess the effect of probiotic consumption on bone health parameters. A systematic literature search of relevant reports published in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and Google scholar before December 2020 was conducted. All clinical trials or experimental studies, which examined the relationship between probiotic consumption and bone health parameters, were included. No limitation was applied during the search. After screening articles based on inclusion criteria, 44 studies remained. In clinical trials, probiotic consumption affects bone health parameters such as serum calcium levels (3.82; 95% CI: 1.05, 6.59 mmol/l), urinary calcium levels (4.85; 95% CI: 1.16, 8.53 mmol/l), and parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels (-5.53; 95% CI: -9.83, -0.86 ng/l). In most studies,

Identifiers

PMID34394379
PMCPMC8355998

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.