Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36570133›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2022

Effect of prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics on gastrointestinal outcomes in healthy adults and active adults at rest and in response to exercise-A systematic literature review.

Christopher E Rauch, Alice S Mika, Alan J McCubbin, Zoya Huschtscha, Ricardo J S Costa

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

Synthesis in Frontiers in nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Prebiotic BimunoExperimental physiology · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. AG1Microorganisms · 2024
    Article
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christopher E RauchDepartment of Nutrition Dietetics and Food, School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Notting Hill, VIC, Australia.
Alice S MikaDepartment of Nutrition Dietetics and Food, School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Notting Hill, VIC, Australia.
Alan J McCubbinDepartment of Nutrition Dietetics and Food, School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Notting Hill, VIC, Australia.
Zoya HuschtschaInstitute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.
Ricardo J S CostaDepartment of Nutrition Dietetics and Food, School of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Notting Hill, VIC, Australia.
Monash University · AUDeakin University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: A systematic literature search was undertaken to assess the impact of pre-, pro-, and syn-biotic supplementation on measures of gastrointestinal status at rest and in response to acute exercise. Methods: Six databases (Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cinahl, SportsDISCUS, Web of Science, and Scopus) were used. Included were human research studies in healthy sedentary adults, and healthy active adults, involving supplementation and control or placebo groups. Sedentary individuals with non-communicable disease risk or established gastrointestinal inflammatory or functional diseases/disorders were excluded. Results: A total of Discussion: Synbiotic outcomes resembled probiotics, likely due to the minimal dose of prebiotic included. Methodological issues and high risk of bias were identified in several studies, using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. A major limitation in the majority of included studies was the lack of a comprehensive approach of well-validated biomarkers specific to gastrointestinal outcomes and many included studies featured small sample sizes. Prebiotic supplementation can influence gut microbial composition and SCFA concentration; whereas probiotics increase the supplemented species-strain, with minimal effect on SCFA, and no effect on any other gastrointestinal status marker at rest. Probiotic and synbiotic supplementation does not substantially reduce epithelial injury and permeability, systemic endotoxin and inflammatory cytokine profiles, or GIS in response to acute exercise.

Indexed as

cytokineendotoxinepithelialexercise-induced gastrointestinal syndromeexertional-heat stressgastrointestinal symptomspermeabilityrunning

Identifiers

PMID36570133
PMCPMC9768503
OpenAlexW4311707128

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.