Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36615708›Full record

Trial reportNutrients2022

Probiotic

Shaoqi Shi, Qi Zhang, Yue Sang, Shaoyang Ge, Qi Wang, Ran Wang, Jingjing He

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

62 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Nutrients · 2025
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Efficacy and Safety ofNutrients · 2025
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shaoqi ShiKey Laboratory of Functional Dairy, Co-constructed by Ministry of Education and Beijing Government, Department of Nutrition and Health, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100190, China.
Qi ZhangKey Laboratory of Functional Dairy, Co-constructed by Ministry of Education and Beijing Government, Department of Nutrition and Health, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100190, China.
Yue SangHebei Engineering Research Center of Animal Product, Langfang 065200, China.
Shaoyang GeHebei Engineering Research Center of Animal Product, Langfang 065200, China.
Qi WangXinjiang Golden Camel Investment Co., Ltd., Wulumuqi 830039, China.
Ran WangKey Laboratory of Functional Dairy, Co-constructed by Ministry of Education and Beijing Government, Department of Nutrition and Health, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100190, China.
Jingjing HeKey Laboratory of Functional Dairy, Co-constructed by Ministry of Education and Beijing Government, Department of Nutrition and Health, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100190, China.
China Agricultural University · CNXinjiang Industry Technical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Probiotics could improve cognitive functions in patients with neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, but the effects on cognitive function in healthy older adults without cognitive impairment need further study. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of Bifidobacterium longum BB68S (BB68S) on cognitive functions among healthy older adults without cognitive impairment. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted with 60 healthy older adults without cognitive impairment who were divided into probiotic or placebo groups and required to consume either a sachet of probiotic (BB68S, 5 × 1010 CFU/sachet) or placebo once daily for 8 weeks. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used as an inclusion screening tool to screen elderly participants with healthy cognitive function in our study, and the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) was used to assess cognitive function in subjects before and after intervention as an assessment tool. BB68S significantly improved subjects’ cognitive functions (total RBANS score increased by 18.89 points after intervention, p < 0.0001), especially immediate memory, visuospatial/constructional, attention, and delayed memory domains. BB68S intervention increased the relative abundances of beneficial bacteria Lachnospira, Bifidobacterium, Dorea, and Cellulosilyticum, while decreasing those of bacteria related to cognition impairment, such as Collinsella, Parabacteroides, Tyzzerella, Bilophila, unclassified_c_Negativicutes, Epulopiscium, Porphyromonas, and Granulicatella. In conclusion, BB68S could improve cognitive functions in healthy elderly adults without cognitive impairment, along with having beneficial regulatory effects on their gut microbiota. This study supports probiotics as a strategy to promote healthy aging and advances cognitive aging research.

Indexed as

Bifidobacterium longumCognitive DysfunctionProbioticsAgedBifidobacteriumCognitionDouble-Blind MethodHumanscognitive functiongut microbiotahealthy older adultsprobiotic

Identifiers

PMID36615708
PMCPMC9824790
OpenAlexW4312172934

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.