Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35458162›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2022

Probiotics for the Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

Huzaifa Ahmad Cheema, Abia Shahid, Muhammad Ayyan, Biah Mustafa, Afra Zahid, Maurish Fatima, Muhammad Ehsan, Farwa Athar, Natalie Duric, Tamas Szakmany

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
6.3field-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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. The central role of the gut in intensive care.Critical care (London, England) · 2022
    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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Huzaifa Ahmad CheemaDepartment of Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0001-6783-7137
Abia ShahidDepartment of Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan.
Muhammad AyyanDepartment of Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-4023-7956
Biah MustafaDepartment of Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan.
Afra ZahidDepartment of Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0003-2831-3968
Maurish FatimaDepartment of Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan.
Muhammad EhsanDepartment of Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-6021-2342
Farwa AtharDepartment of Medicine, King Edward Medical University, Lahore 54000, Pakistan.
Natalie DuricCritical Care Directorate, The Grange University Hospital, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Cwmbran NP44 2XJ, UK.
Tamas SzakmanyCritical Care Directorate, The Grange University Hospital, Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, Cwmbran NP44 2XJ, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3632-8844
King Edward Medical University · PKAneurin Bevan University Health Board · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPresently, there is conflicting evidence regarding the efficacy of probiotics in the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). This meta-analysis was conducted to update current clinical evidence and evaluate the efficacy and safety of probiotics for the prevention of VAP.

methodsWe searched three databases and two trial registers to retrieve randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing probiotics or synbiotics with placebo or standard treatment for the prevention of VAP in adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU).

resultsOur meta-analysis included 18 RCTs involving 4893 patients. Our results showed that probiotics may reduce the incidence of VAP (RR 0.68, 95% CI: 0.55-0.84; low certainty). However, in our subgroup and sensitivity analyses, the effect was not significant in double-blind studies, and in studies with a low risk of bias in the randomisation process. Probiotics reduced the length of ICU stay (MD -2.22 days, 95% CI: -4.17 to -0.28; moderate certainty) and the duration of antibiotic use (MD -1.25 days, 95% CI -1.86 to -0.64; moderate certainty).

conclusionsProbiotics may reduce the incidence of VAP but due to the low quality of pooled evidence, the use of probiotics warrants caution. Further, large-scale, high-quality RCTs need to be conducted to provide conclusive evidence.

Indexed as

Pneumonia, Ventilator-AssociatedProbioticsSynbioticsAdultHumansIntensive Care UnitsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRespiration, Artificialmeta-analysisprobioticssynbioticsVAPventilator-associated pneumonia

Identifiers

PMID35458162
PMCPMC9031795
OpenAlexW4223940454

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.