SynthesisScientific reports2024
Nanocarrier-mediated probiotic delivery: a systematic meta-analysis assessing the biological effects.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical innovations and future directions of nanoparticles in the treatment of psychiatric and neurological disorders.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Review
- A Microbial Odyssey: Reshaping Probiotic Destinies through Advanced Delivery Technologies.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Review
- Parabiotics as Next-Generation Microbiome Therapeutics: Insights into Mechanisms, Evidence, and Therapeutic Potential.Current microbiology · 2026Review
- Nanobiotic-Enhanced Probiotics for Targeted Gut Delivery: Mechanisms, Therapeutic Applications, and Translational Challenges.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Shaping the Future of Microbial Therapies Through Intelligent Probiotic and Postbiotic Delivery.Biomolecules · 2025Article
- Optimistic effects of dual nano-encapsulated probiotics on breeders laying performance, intestinal barrier functions, immunity and resistance against Salmonella Typhimurium challenge.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Probiotics in Nanotechnology-Driven Wound Healing: From Mechanistic Insight to Clinical Promise.Pharmaceutics · 2025Review
- The relationship between the skin microbiome and probiotics in the healing of burn injuries.Folia microbiologica · 2025Review
- Review
- Advances in bio-polymer coatings for probiotic microencapsulation: chitosan and beyond for enhanced stability and controlled release.Designed monomers and polymers · 2025Review
- Chitosan-coated probiotic nanoparticles mitigate acrylamide-induced toxicity in the Drosophila model.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Neuroinflammation and Schizophrenia: New Therapeutic Strategies through Psychobiotics, Nanotechnology, and Artificial Intelligence (AI).Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Probiotics have gained a significant attention as a promising way to improve gut health and overall well-being. The increasing recognition of the potential health advantages associated with functional food products, leading to a specific emphasis on co-encapsulating probiotic bacteria and bioactive compounds within a unified matrix. To further explore this concept, a meta-analysis was performed to assess the effects of probiotics encapsulated in nanoparticles. A comprehensive meta-analysis was conducted, encompassing 10 papers published from 2017 to 2022, focusing on the encapsulation of probiotics within nanoparticles and their viability in various gastrointestinal conditions. The selection of these papers was based on their direct relevance to the research topic. Random-effect models were used to aggregate study-specific risk estimates. In the majority of studies, it was observed that nano-encapsulated nanoparticles showed improved viability over time compared to their free state counterparts. At various time intervals, the odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using fixed and random effect models. At 0 min, the OR (95%CI) was 2.79 (2.79; 2.80) and 2.38 (2.14; 2.64) for. At 30 and 60 min observation was at similar rate of 2.23 (2.23; 2.24) and 2.05 (1.73; 2.43). However, at 90 min it was 1.39 (1.39; 1.39) and 1.66 (1.29; 2.14) and at 120 min 2.41 (2.41; 2.42) and 2.03 (1.63; 2.52). Overall evaluation of encapsulation revealed an improvement in probiotic bacterial viability in simulated the gastrointestinal environments.
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.