Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37686889›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2023

Outcome-Specific Efficacy of Different Probiotic Strains and Mixtures in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Peiwei Xie, Mei Luo, Xuehong Deng, Jiahui Fan, Lishou Xiong

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrients, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Peiwei XieDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China.
Mei LuoDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China.
Xuehong DengDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China.
Jiahui FanDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China.
Lishou XiongDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China.
The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat-sen University · CNSun Yat-sen University · CN

Funding

the National Natural Science Foundation of China 81970471
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common gastrointestinal disease. The efficacy of different probiotics in treating IBS remains controversial. This network meta-analysis aimed to compare and rank the outcome-specific efficacy of different probiotic strains or combinations in adults with IBS. We searched the literature up to June 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of probiotics in IBS were included. A frequentist framework was used to perform this study. In total, 9253 participants from 81 RCTs were included in the study. Four probiotic strains and five mixtures were significantly superior to placebo in improving IBS Symptom Severity Scale, among which

Indexed as

Bacillus coagulansIrritable Bowel SyndromeProbioticsAbdominal PainAdultHumansSaccharomyces cerevisiaeefficacyirritable bowel syndromenetwork meta-analysisoutcomeprobiotic

Identifiers

PMID37686889
PMCPMC10490209
OpenAlexW4386422985

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.