SynthesisBMC oral health2025
Efficacy of probiotics for oral candidiasis management: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of probiotics in the management of oral candidiasis: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Burning Mouth Syndrome, the Oral Microbiome, and Lactic Acid Bacteria: A Comprehensive Review of Clinical Features, Microbial Dysbiosis, and Probiotic Therapeutic Potential.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- State-of-the-Art Review on Probiotics, Synbiotics, and Microbial Metabolites: Molecular Mechanisms Shaping Host Immunity, Metabolic Health, and Chronic Disease Prevention.Molecular nutrition & food research · 2026Review
- Review
- The roles of salivary secretory IgA on the development of oral candidiasis.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Review
- Harnessing Probiotics to Combat Candidiasis: Mechanisms, Evidence, and Future Directions.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOral candidiasis is a common opportunistic fungal infection caused by the genus Candida that primarily affects immunocompromised individuals. However, the clinical application of antifungal agents still faces frequent side effects and antifungal resistance, highlighting the urgent need for alternative therapeutic options. This systematic review aimed to synthesize RCT evidence up to February 2025, comprehensively comparing clinical outcomes across various probiotic regimens, in order to assess the efficacy of probiotics for oral candidiasis.
methodsA literature search was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing probiotic regimens (multi-strain combinations or strain-specific interventions) with control groups. Thirteen RCTs were analyzed, using a classical frequentist meta-analysis model. Outcomes focused on the odds ratio (OR) of oral candidiasis (defined as CFU/mL > 10
resultsThe meta-analytic OR was 0.38 (95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.22, 0.68), indicating a beneficial effect of treatment; the I
conclusionThe treatment effect in the susceptible populations appeared to have lower heterogeneity and more stable outcomes, indicating that the application of probiotics is beneficial for oral candidiasis, and the effects vary according to the population characteristics and sample size. Owing to the small sample size and high-risk studies, the results should be interpreted with caution.
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.