SynthesisInfection2025
Evaluation of probiotics efficiency for the prevention of Clostridioides difficile infection in hospitalized patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Infection, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of probiotic supplementation in preventingFrontiers in nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Probiotics for ulcerative colitis: mechanisms, therapeutic advances, and emerging strategies.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClostridioides difficile infection (CDI) poses a significant healthcare challenge, with the most frequent cause being antibiotic-associated diarrhea, affecting hospitalized individuals with substantial cost and mortality concerns. However, there is no information regarding probiotic efficiency for initial CDI treatment, and the modulation of microbiota by probiotics has been suggested as a potential preventive measure against CDI.
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of probiotics in preventing CDI in hospitalized patients.
methodsAn exhaustive literature search was performed using PubMed to identify controlled/clinical trials investigating the use of probiotics for CDI prevention among hospitalized individuals based on PRISMA guidelines and the PICO framework. Relevant data were extracted from selected studies. Statistical meta-analysis (subgroup or sensitivity analyses) was performed using R Studio to calculate the pooled effect size, odds ratio (OR) with a 95% CI, p-value, and heterogeneity. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB) tool to determine publication bias and sensitivity of the included studies.
resultsFour studies with a significant number of participants were identified and included in the meta-analysis. The incidence of CDI was reduced in the probiotic group compared to the placebo group, with an overall OR of 0.99 (95% CI [0.56; 1.7]), increased heterogeneity, and a non-significant p-value, using a random effects model in R Studio. Subgroup analysis suggested possible beneficial outcomes regarding the selection of probiotic strain and dose regimen, supporting the effective use of probiotics in preventing CDI. Two of the included studies showed a high risk of bias in the randomization process, while others indicated a significantly low risk of bias.
conclusionDetailed or systematic information on CDI treatment provides evidence that the direction of the odds ratio suggests a possible protective role of probiotics, although the overall effect was not significant. The OR < 1.0 indicates a neutral efficiency of probiotics, on CDI incidence observed in the probiotics group compared to the placebo group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40493294What 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.