Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35291228›Full record

ArticleBurns & trauma2022

Efficacy of probiotics or synbiotics for critically ill adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Kai Wang, Qin Zeng, Ke-Xun Li, Yu Wang, Lu Wang, Ming-Wei Sun, Jun Zeng, Hua Jiang

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Burns & trauma, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. The gastrointestinal microbiome in critical illness: A Clinician's guide to mechanisms, emerging tools, and therapeutic questions.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kai WangDepartment of Acute Care Surgery, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610000, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9839-966X
Qin ZengDepartment of Reproductive Medicine, Sichuan Provincial Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, The Affiliated Women's and children's Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu 610045, China.
Ke-Xun LiDepartment of Acute Care Surgery, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610000, China.
Yu WangDepartment of Acute Care Surgery, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610000, China.
Lu WangDepartment of Acute Care Surgery, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610000, China.
Ming-Wei SunDepartment of Acute Care Surgery, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610000, China.
Jun ZengDepartment of Acute Care Surgery, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610000, China.
Hua JiangDepartment of Acute Care Surgery, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610000, China.
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China · CNChengdu Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Microbial dysbiosis in critically ill patients is a leading cause of mortality and septic complications. Probiotics and synbiotics have emerged as novel therapy on gut microbiota to prevent septic complications. However, current evidence on their effects is conflicting. This work aims to systematically review the impact of probiotics or synbiotics in critically ill adult patients. Methods: A comprehensive search of the PubMed, CBM, Embase, CENTRAL, ISI, and CNKI databases was performed to identify randomized controlled trials that evaluate probiotics or synbiotics in critically ill patients. The quality assessment was based on the modified Jadad's score scale and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The major outcome measure was mortality. Secondary outcomes included incidence of septic complications, sepsis incidence, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, incidence of non-septic complication, and ventilator day. Data synthesis was conduct by Review Manager 5.4. Results: A total of 25 randomized controlled trials reporting on 5049 critically ill patients were included. In the intervention group, 2520 participants received probiotics or synbiotics, whereas 2529 participants received standard care or placebo. Pooling data from randomized controlled trials demonstrated a significant reduction in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in the treatment group [(risk ratio (RR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-0.95; Conclusions: Synbiotics is an effective and safe nutrition therapy in reducing septic complications in critically ill patients. However, in such patients, administration of probiotics alone compared with placebo resulted in no difference in the septic complications.

Indexed as

Critically ill patientsMeta-analysisMortalityProbioticsSynbioticsSystematic reviewVentilator-associated pneumonia

Identifiers

PMID35291228
PMCPMC8918756
OpenAlexW4210358300

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.