SynthesisPloS one2025
Efficacy of probiotic supplements in the treatment of sarcopenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of host and gut microbiota-altering interventions on sarcopenia or its defining parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis of nutrition-based intervention studies.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2025Pooled it
- Effects of Heat-KilledNutrients · 2026Trial
- Postbiotics and Skeletal Muscle Health: Molecular Mechanisms and Translational Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Impact of probiotic, prebiotic, and synbiotic supplementation on the gut microbiome in older adults with sarcopenia, obesity, and sarcopenic obesity.Osteoporosis international : a journal established as result of cooperation between the European Foundation for Osteoporosis and the National Osteoporosis Foundation of the USA · 2026Review
- The impact of probiotics and synbiotics supplementation on bone health; an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analysis.SAGE open medicine · 2026Review
- Beyond Calcium and Vitamin D: Exploring Creatine, β-Hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate, Prebiotics and Probiotics in Osteosarcopenia.Nutrients · 2025Review
- Review
- Correction: Efficacy of probiotic supplements in the treatment of sarcopenia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although some studies have confirmed the efficacy of probiotics in the treatment of sarcopenia, the intervention of sarcopenia is a comprehensive consideration of many factors, and the efficacy of probiotics is still controversial. Therefore, this study systematically evaluated the efficacy of probiotics in the intervention of sarcopenia via high-quality meta-analysis, providing a basis for the clinical diagnosis and treatment of sarcopenia. Randomized controlled trials related to probiotics in the treatment of sarcopenia were searched in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science. The search time was from inception to 2024-07-17. Two investigators independently screened the articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 14.0 software. A total of 22 eligible studies were included. The results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between probiotics and placebo in improving muscle mass and Lean body mass in sarcopenia patients; MD: 0.66, 95%CI: - 0.01-1.33; Z = 1.93, P > 0.05; MD: - 0.13, 95%CI: -0.81-0.55; Z = 0.38, P = 0.71 > 0.05. However, probiotics were found to significantly improve overall muscle strength compared with the placebo group. MD: 2.99, 95%CI: 2.14-3.85; Z = 6.86, P < 0.001. Probiotics can significantly improve global muscle strength in patients with sarcopenia. It is suggested that probiotics have certain clinical value in the clinical treatment of sarcopenia, but the results may be limited by the number and quality of included studies. The above conclusions need to be verified by more high-quality studies.
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.