Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36115982›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2022

The ameliorative role of specific probiotic combinations on bone loss in the ovariectomized rat model.

Ahmad Gholami, Mohammad Hossein Dabbaghmanesh, Younes Ghasemi, Farhad Koohpeyma, Pedram Talezadeh, Nima Montazeri-Najafabady

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  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 1 institution in 1 country.

Ahmad GholamiBiotechnology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Mohammad Hossein DabbaghmaneshEndocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Nemazee Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4877-0376
Younes GhasemiPharmaceutical Science Research Center and School of Pharmacy Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9470-1278
Farhad KoohpeymaEndocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Nemazee Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6729-7732
Pedram TalezadehEndocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Nemazee Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.
Nima Montazeri-NajafabadyEndocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Nemazee Hospital, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. montazerin@sums.ac.ir.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6699-1415
Shiraz University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

Shiraz University of Medical Sciences 97-01-33-18906.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOsteoporosis, a skeletal disease described by impaired bone strength, cause an increased risk of fractures. We aimed in this study to clarify which particular wise combination of probiotics has the most beneficial effect in the rat model of osteoporosis.

methodsSixty-three mature female Sprague Dawley rats (12-14 weeks old, weight 200 ± 20 g) were ovariectomized and then divided into nine random groups, each group consisting of 7 rats. Lactic acid bacteria were isolated from traditional fermented yogurt on the northern coast of the Persian Gulf. Seven combinations of probiotics, each containing three probiotic strains, were designed and administered (1 × 10

resultsCombination NO 4, containing L. acidophilus, B. longum, and L. reuteri, is the most influential group on global, spine, and femur BMD. Combination NO 3, containing L. acidophilus, L. casei, and L. reuteri, also significantly affects the BMD of the tibia among the treatment group. We found that the combination NO 4 had the most significant ameliorative effect on global BMC. Also, combination NO 1 (comprising L. acidophilus, L. casei, and B. longum), NO 6 (containing L. casei, B. longum, and Bacillus coagulans), NO 7 (containing L. casei, L. reuteri, and B. longum), and NO 4 had the most considerable raising effect on spine BMC. In addition, the serum calcium and Vitamin D concentration in the groups NO 4, 6, and 7 were significantly higher than in OVX groups, whereas the alkaline phosphatase concentration was considerably reduced in these groups.

conclusionAmong nine effective probiotics, a combination containing L. acidophilus, B. longum, and L. reuteri is the most influential group in ovariectomized osteoporotic rat.

Indexed as

Bone Diseases, MetabolicOsteoporosisProbioticsSulfaleneAlkaline PhosphataseAnimalsBiomarkersCalciumFemalePhosphorusRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyVitamin DWaterAlkaline PhosphataseBiomarkersCalciumPhosphorusSulfaleneVitamin DWaterBoneLactobacillusOsteoporosisProbiotic

Identifiers

PMID36115982
PMCPMC9482298
OpenAlexW4296185648

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.