SynthesisThe journal of nutrition, health & aging2023
Efficacy and Safety of Probiotics in Geriatric Patients with Constipation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Colon Capsule Endoscopy-Measured Colonic Transit Time Is Associated with Frailty in Older Adults.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Nanobiotic-Enhanced Probiotics for Targeted Gut Delivery: Mechanisms, Therapeutic Applications, and Translational Challenges.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Combined Protein, Probiotics, and Exercise Therapy for Sarcopenia: A Comprehensive Review.Cells · 2025Review
- Review
- Efficacy and safety of live combinedFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Role of probiotics in managing various human diseases, from oral pathology to cancer and gastrointestinal diseases.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProbiotics may be an effective alternative to traditional drug therapy for constipation in the elderly.
objectiveTo assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics in managing constipation among the elderly.
methodsEight databases were queried for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating probiotics' efficacy in addressing constipation among the elderly until January 2023. The meta-analysis was conducted employing R software version 4.2.2. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was utilized to evaluate the risk of bias, and the GRADE approach was employed to assess the credibility of the evidence concerning the efficacy of probiotics in treating constipation in older individuals.
resultsA total of six RCTs involving 444 patients were included. Two studies were rated as low risk of bias. The meta-analysis findings revealed that probiotics, when compared to a placebo, led to an increase in stool frequency (MD = 1.02,95% CI [0.21, 2.07], p<0.05, very low quality), the probiotic group exhibited a notable impact on ameliorating symptoms associated with constipation (OR = 11.28, 95%CI [7.21, 17.64], p < 0.05, very low quality), no significant disparities were observed in terms of efforts to evacuate, manual maneuvers, and the incidence of adverse events (p>0.05).
conclusionThe available evidence indicates a degree of uncertainty, ranging from low-to-very low, suggesting the efficacy of probiotics in augmenting bowel frequency and ameliorating constipation-related symptoms among elderly patients with constipation. Nevertheless, given the quality of the studies included, it is advisable to conduct further well-designed investigations with substantial sample sizes to substantiate the findings of this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.