Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37460707›Full record

SynthesisPediatric research2023

Bifidobacterium infantis as a probiotic in preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Vamsi K Batta, Shripada C Rao, Sanjay K Patole

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Pediatric research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.5field-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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Nutrients · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Neonatal faecal abundance ofGut microbiome (Cambridge, England) · 2026
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Synbiotic effects of 2'-fucosyllactose andFrontiers in nutrition · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Vamsi K BattaNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Perth Children's Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia.
Shripada C RaoNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, Perth Children's Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia. shripada.rao@uwa.edu.au.
Sanjay K PatoleNeonatal Intensive Care Unit, King Edward Memorial Hospital, Perth, WA, Australia.
King Edward Memorial Hospital · AUPerth Children's HospitalPrincess Margaret Hospital for Children · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBifidobacterium infantis has special abilities to utilise human milk oligosaccharides. Hence we hypothesised that probiotic supplements containing B. infantis may confer greater benefits to preterm infants than probiotic supplements without B. infantis.

methodsA systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted according to standard guidelines. We selected RCTs evaluating probiotics compared to placebo or no treatment in preterm and/or low birth weight infants. Probiotic effects on Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC), Late Onset Sepsis (LOS) and Mortality were analysed separately for RCTs in which the supplemented probiotic product contained B. infantis and those that did not contain B. infantis.

results67 RCTs were included (n = 14,606), of which 16 used probiotics containing B. infantis (Subgroup A) and 51 RCTs did not (Subgroup B) Meta-analysis of all RCTs indicated that probiotics reduced the risk of NEC, LOS, and mortality. The subgroup meta-analysis demonstrated greater reduction in the incidence of NEC in subgroup A than subgroup B [(relative risk in subgroup A: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.27-0.55) versus (0.67; 95% CI, 0.55-0.81) in subgroup B; p value for subgroup difference: 0.01].

conclusionsThese results provide indirect evidence that probiotic supplements that include B. infantis may be more beneficial for preterm infants. Well-designed RCTs are necessary to confirm these findings. IMPACT: Evidence is emerging that beneficial effects of probiotics are species and strain specific. This systematic review analyses if B. infantis supplementation provides an advantage to preterm infants. This is the first systematic review evaluating the effects of probiotics containing B. infantis in preterm infants. The results of this systematic review provides indirect evidence that probiotics that include B. infantis may be more beneficial for preterm infants. These results will help in guiding future research and clinical practice for using B. infantis as a probiotic in preterm infants.

Indexed as

Enterocolitis, NecrotizingProbioticsSepsisBifidobacterium longum subspecies infantisDietary SupplementsHumansInfantInfant, Low Birth WeightInfant, NewbornInfant, Premature

Identifiers

PMID37460707
PMCPMC10665187
OpenAlexW4384561874

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.