Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36014803›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2022

Effect of Fructooligosaccharides Supplementation on the Gut Microbiota in Human: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Yuqi Dou, Xue Yu, Yuanli Luo, Botian Chen, Defu Ma, Jing Zhu

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 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.6field-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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 77 citations in OpenAlex.

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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yuqi DouSchool of Public Health, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing 100191, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8973-717X
Xue YuSchool of Public Health, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing 100191, China.
Yuanli LuoWest China School of Public Health, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China.
Botian ChenSchool of Public Health, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing 100191, China.
Defu MaSchool of Public Health, Peking University Health Science Center, Beijing 100191, China.
Jing ZhuInstitute of Biotechnology and Health, Beijing Academy of Science and Technology, Beijing 100089, China.
Peking University · CNBeijing Academy of Science and Technology · CNSichuan University · CN

Funding

CNS Research Fund for DRI CNS Research Fund for DRI
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Numerous studies have investigated the effects of the supplementation of fructooligosaccharides (FOS) on the number of bacteria in the gut that are good for health, but the results have been inconsistent. Additionally, due to its high fermentability, supplementation of FOS may be associated with adverse gastrointestinal symptoms such as bloating and flatulence. Therefore, we assessed the effects of FOS interventions on the composition of gut microbiota and gastrointestinal symptoms in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Design: All randomized controlled trials published before 10 July 2022 that investigated the effects of FOS supplementation on the human gut microbiota composition and gastrointestinal symptoms and met the selection criteria were included in this study. Using fixed or random-effects models, the means and standard deviations of the differences between the two groups before and after the intervention were combined into weighted mean differences using 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Eight studies containing 213 FOS supplements and 175 controls remained in this meta-analysis. Bifidobacterium spp. counts significantly increased during FOS ingestion (0.579, 95% CI: 0.444−0.714) in comparison with that of the control group. Subgroup analysis showed greater variation in Bifidobacterium spp. in adults (0.861, 95% CI: 0.614−1.108) than in infants (0.458, 95% CI: 0.297−0.619). The increase in Bifidobacterium spp. counts were greater in the group with an intervention duration greater than 4 weeks (0.841, 95% CI: 0.436−1.247) than an intervention time less than or equal to four weeks (0.532, 95% CI: 0.370−0.694), and in the group with intervention doses > 5 g (1.116, 95% CI: 0.685−1.546) the counts were higher than those with doses ≤ 5 g (0.521, 95% CI: 0.379−0.663). No differences in effect were found between FOS intervention and comparators in regard to the abundance of other prespecified bacteria or adverse gastrointestinal symptoms. Conclusions: This is the first meta-analysis to explore the effect of FOS on gut microbiota and to evaluate the adverse effects of FOS intake on the gastrointestinal tract. FOS supplementation could increase the number of colonic Bifidobacterium spp. while higher dose (7.5−15 g/d) and longer duration (>4 weeks) showed more distinct effects and was well tolerated.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeAdultBacteriaBifidobacteriumDietary SupplementsHumansInfantOligosaccharidesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicfructooligosaccharideOligosaccharidesBifidobacterium spp.Fructooligosaccharidesgastrointestinal symptomsgut microbiota

Identifiers

PMID36014803
PMCPMC9413759
OpenAlexW4291149852

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.