SynthesisEuropean journal of nutrition2024
Network meta-analysis of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics for the treatment of chronic constipation in adults.
Synthesis in European journal of nutrition, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing the Safety and Probiotic Potential of Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis BI45: A Comprehensive Study from Genomic Analysis to Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial in Healthy Adults.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Trial
- Lactiplantibacillus plantarum Z6 Improves Functional Constipation in Infants.Biotechnology journal · 2026Trial
- Probiotics in Alleviating Constipation: Mechanisms, Strain Screening, and Applications.Biology · 2026Review
- Functional Reconstruction of the Gut Microecosystem in Gastrointestinal Motility Disorders: Roles of Probiotics, Prebiotics, Synbiotics and Postbiotics.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Review
- Clinical Guidance and Practical Recommendations for Probiotic Use in Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Functional Constipation, andJournal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Review
- Clinical guidance and practical recommendations for probiotic use in patients with irritable bowel syndrome, functional constipation, and Clostridioides difficile infection considering sex-based differences: a Korean translation.Ewha medical journal · 2026Article
- Research progress and controversies in the treatment of functional constipation-related depression with probiotics and prebiotics: a narrative review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- (Poly)phenol-gut microbiota interactions and their impact on human health.Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care · 2025Review
- Efficacy and safety of live combinedFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Article
- Synergistic defecation effects ofFrontiers in immunology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the outcomes associated with the use of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics for the treatment of chronic constipation in adults.
methodsWe searched eight electronic databases from database inception to July 11, 2023, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that report efficacy and safety for the treatment of chronic constipation. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was evaluated according to the Cochrane tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework. The analysis was conducted using R version 4.3.0.
resultsOut of the 37 RCTs, a total of 21 different types of interventions were reported, involving 3,903 patients. This NMA demonstrated that both prebiotics and synbiotics resulted in an increase in frequency of stool movements per week. Compared to placebo, lactulose (Mean difference [MD] = 3.39, 95% Confdence interval [CI] [1.13, 5.65], moderate certainty), mix2 (consisting of Lactulose and Bacillus coagulans) (MD = 3.63, 95% CI [1.37, 5.89], moderate certainty), mix6 (consisting of Lactulose and Bifidobacterium coagulans) (MD = 4.30, 95% CI [1.04, 7.54], low certainty), and mix7 (consisting of Lactulose, Bifidobacterium subtilis, and Enterococcus faecium) (MD = 4.58, 95% CI [1.35, 7.78], moderate certainty) exhibited a significant effect. Notably, mix7 demonstrated the highest probability of being the most effective intervention (94.8%). Furthermore, when compared to L. plantarum, four probiotics and two synbiotics showed significant advantages in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) score. L. reuteri (MD = -13.74, 95% CI [-22.20, -4.66], very low certainty) exhibited a significant effect in improving the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QoL) score. In terms of safety, there were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups in all adverse event analyses.
conclusionsModerate to very low evidence supports the use of lactulose and synbiotics to increase the number of weekly stool movements in patients, particularly highlighting the significant impact of synbiotics in increasing the number of weekly stool movements in patients with constipation. The use of L. paracasei showed improvements in PAC-SYM scores, while L. reuteri demonstrated enhancements in PAC-QoL scores.
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.