Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39545776›Full record

SynthesisJournal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research2024

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of probiotics on bone outcomes in rodent models.

Jenalyn L Yumol, William Gittings, Russell J de Souza, Wendy E Ward

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Probiotic Supplementation and Bone Health Parameters in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Intestinal-Bone Axis Mediated byMicroorganisms · 2026
    Review
  5. Links between bone fractures and the gut microbiota.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Frontiers in nutrition · 2025
    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

4 authors.

Jenalyn L YumolDepartment of Kinesiology, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1, Canada.ORCID 0009-0001-1210-1648
William GittingsDepartment of Kinesiology, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1, Canada.
Russell J de SouzaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8R 2K3, Canada.
Wendy E WardDepartment of Kinesiology, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Emerging evidence demonstrates an opportunity for using probiotics to support bone health, but findings in humans are limited. This systematic review investigated if probiotic supplementation improves bone mineral density (BMD) and bone structure in rodent models compared to no supplementation. Studies (n = 71) examining the effect of oral consumption of any probiotic strain on BMD or bone structure in rodents were included. Meta-analyses were conducted separately by study model (intact, ovariectomized) and bone site (femur, tibia, spine) to determine the probiotic effect (standardized mean difference, SMD) on volumetric BMD (vBMD), bone volume fraction (BV/TV), and cortical thickness (Ct.Th). Reasons for heterogeneity were explored (probiotic genus, sex, type of rodent). In intact rodents, probiotics resulted in greater vBMD (SMD = 0.43, 95% CI [0.13, 0.74], I2 = 3%, p < 0.05) and higher BV/TV (SMD = 0.63, 95% CI [0.25, 1.02], I2 = 57%, p < 0.05) at the femur without changes in cortical bone structure. In ovariectomized models, probiotic supplementation resulted in greater vBMD (femur: SMD = 1.28, 95% CI [1.01, 1.55], I2 = 3%, p < 0.05; tibia: SMD = 1.29, 95% CI [0.52, 2.05], I2 = 67%, p < 0.05; and spine: SMD = 1.47, 95% CI [0.97, 1.97], I2 = 26%, p < 0.05) as well as higher BV/TV (femur: SMD = 1.16, 95% CI [0.80, 1.52], I2 = 56%, p < 0.05; tibia: SMD = 2.13, 95% CI [1.09, 3.17], I2 = 79%, p < 0.05; spine: SMD = 2.04, 95% CI [1.17, 2.90], I2 = 76%, p < 0.05) and Ct.Th at the tibia (SMD = 2.35; 95% CI [0.72, 3.97], I2 = 82%, p < .0.05) but not at the femur versus control. The syntheses support probiotics as a strategy to improve bone outcomes in rodent models.

Indexed as

Bone DensityProbioticsAnimalsBone and BonesFemaleHumansRodentiaBMDbone QCT/μCTDXApreclinical studiesprobioticsrodents

Identifiers

PMID39545776
PMCPMC11700591

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.