Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35948276›Full record

SynthesisAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2022

Orally Ingested Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Synbiotics as Countermeasures for Respiratory Tract Infections in Nonelderly Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Julie L Coleman, Adrienne Hatch-McChesney, Stephanie D Small, Jillian T Allen, Elaine Sullo, Richard T Agans, Heather S Fagnant, Asma S Bukhari, J Philip Karl

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Is There Evidence to Support Probiotic Use for Healthy People?Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Julie L ColemanUS Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA, USA.
Adrienne Hatch-McChesneyUS Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA, USA.
Stephanie D SmallUS Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4630-3790
Jillian T AllenUS Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA, USA.
Elaine SulloThe George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
Richard T AgansNaval Medical Research Unit Dayton, Dayton, OH, USA.
Heather S FagnantUS Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA, USA.
Asma S BukhariUS Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA, USA.
J Philip KarlUS Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA, USA.
U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine · USGeorge Washington University · USParsons (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The impact of gut microbiota-targeted interventions on the incidence, duration, and severity of respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in nonelderly adults, and factors moderating any such effects, are unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effects of orally ingested probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics compared with placebo on RTI incidence, duration, and severity in nonelderly adults, and to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. Studies were identified by searching CENTRAL, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to December 2021. English-language, peer-reviewed publications of randomized, placebo-controlled studies that tested an orally ingested probiotic, prebiotic, or synbiotic intervention of any dose for ≥1 wk in adults aged 18-65 y were included. Results were synthesized using intention-to-treat and per-protocol random-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was explored by subgroup meta-analysis and meta-regression. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool for randomized trials version 2 (RoB2). Forty-two manuscripts reporting effects of probiotics (n = 38), prebiotics (n = 2), synbiotics (n = 1) or multiple -biotic types (n = 1) were identified (n = 9179 subjects). Probiotics reduced the risk of experiencing ≥1 RTI (relative risk = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.98; P = 0.01), and total days (rate ratio = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.71, 0.83; P < 0.001), duration (Hedges' g = -0.23; 95% CI: -0.39, -0.08; P = 0.004), and severity (Hedges' g = -0.16; 95% CI: -0.29, -0.03; P = 0.02) of RTIs. Effects were relatively consistent across different strain combinations, doses, and durations, although reductions in RTI duration were larger with fermented dairy as the delivery matrix, and beneficial effects of probiotics were not observed in physically active populations. Overall risk of bias was rated as "some  concerns" for most studies. In conclusion, orally ingested probiotics, relative to placebo, modestly reduce the incidence, duration, and severity of RTIs in nonelderly adults. Physical activity and delivery matrix may moderate some of these effects. Whether prebiotic and synbiotic interventions confer similar protection remains unclear due to few relevant studies. This trial was registered at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ as CRD42020220213.

Indexed as

ProbioticsRespiratory Tract InfectionsSynbioticsAdultHumansPrebioticsPubMedPrebioticscommon coldcoronavirusdietary supplementfermentable fibergut microbiomeinfluenzarespiratory illnessrespiratory infection

Identifiers

PMID35948276
PMCPMC9776651
OpenAlexW4290973973

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.