Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39731509›Full record

SynthesisNutrition reviews2025

Effects of Prebiotics and Probiotics on Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety in Clinically Diagnosed Samples: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Afrida Asad, Megan Kirk, Sufen Zhu, Xue Dong, Min Gao

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrition reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Live and Heat-InactivatedNutrients · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. The therapeutic potential ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors.

Afrida AsadNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, United Kingdom.
Megan KirkNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2069-2177
Sufen ZhuNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, United Kingdom.
Xue DongNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0005-1897-7279
Min GaoNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6GG, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6196-7088

Funding

Department of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchOxford Health Biomedical Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextThe use of prebiotics and probiotics as a treatment for psychiatric conditions has gained interest due to their potential to modulate the gut-brain axis. This review aims to assess the effectiveness of these interventions in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety in psychiatric populations.

objectiveThe aim was to comprehensively review and appraise the effectiveness of prebiotic, probiotic, and synbiotic interventions in reducing clinical depression and anxiety symptoms. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were conducted across Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index from database inception to May 22, 2023. DATA EXTRACTION: Randomized controlled trials investigating prebiotic, probiotic, or synbiotic interventions for treating clinical depression or anxiety symptoms in clinical samples were included. Data were extracted on study characteristics, intervention details, and outcome measures. The Cochrane Collaboration Tool was used to assess the risk of bias. DATA ANALYSIS: The standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated using Hedge's g as the metric of effect size. A random-effects model was applied to estimate pooled effect sizes with 95% CIs. Subgroup analyses were performed based on study characteristics, methodological factors, and intervention types. Sensitivity analyses excluded studies with a high risk of bias.

resultsTwenty-three RCTs involving 1401 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 20 trials providing sufficient data for meta-analysis. Of these, 18 trials investigated probiotics for depression, 9 trials assessed probiotics for anxiety, and 3 trials examined prebiotics for depression. Probiotics demonstrated a significant reduction in depression symptoms (SMD: -0.96; 95% CI: -1.31, -0.61) and a moderate reduction in anxiety symptoms (SMD: -0.59; 95% CI: -0.98, -0.19). Prebiotics did not show a significant effect on depression (SMD: -0.28; 95% CI: -0.61, 0.04). High heterogeneity was observed across studies, and subgroup analyses indicated that study duration and probiotic formulations contributed to the variation in effect sizes.

conclusionProbiotics showed substantial reductions in depression symptoms and moderate reductions in anxiety symptoms. Prebiotics showed a nonsignificant trend toward reducing depression. An adjunctive mental health treatment approach that diagnoses, monitors, and treats the gut microbiome alongside traditional pharmacological treatment holds promise for clinical practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no. CRD42023424136.

Indexed as

AnxietyDepressionPrebioticsProbioticsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSynbioticsPrebioticsanxietydepressionmeta-analysisprebioticsprobiotics

Identifiers

PMID39731509
PMCPMC12166186

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.