Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40732081›Full record

ReviewMicroorganisms2025

Effects of Postbiotic Administration on Canine Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Diego Paul Bonel-Ayuso, Javier Pineda-Pampliega, Paloma Martinez-Alesón García, Montserrat Fernandez-Muela, Jesús de la Fuente, Paloma Maria Garcia Fernandez, Beatriz Isabel Redondo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microorganisms, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Effects of Complementary Feed with Postbiotics Derived fromAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Functional Effects ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Effects of aAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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

7 authors.

Diego Paul Bonel-AyusoDepartment of Animal Production, Faculty of Veterinary, Complutense University of Madrid, Avenida Puerta de Hierro s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0009-0002-4373-7785
Javier Pineda-PampliegaDepartment of Animal Production, Faculty of Veterinary, Complutense University of Madrid, Avenida Puerta de Hierro s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4997-5098
Paloma Martinez-Alesón GarcíaDepartment of Pharmaceutical and Health Sciences, Faculty of Pharmacy, CEU San Pablo University, Plaza Montepríncipe 1D, 28668 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2642-4683
Montserrat Fernandez-MuelaDepartment of Animal Production, Faculty of Veterinary, Complutense University of Madrid, Avenida Puerta de Hierro s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5699-4719
Jesús de la FuenteDepartment of Animal Production, Faculty of Veterinary, Complutense University of Madrid, Avenida Puerta de Hierro s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7110-266X
Paloma Maria Garcia FernandezDepartment of Animal Medicine and Surgery, Faculty of Veterinary, Complutense University of Madrid, Avenida Puerta de Hierro s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain.
Beatriz Isabel RedondoDepartment of Animal Production, Faculty of Veterinary, Complutense University of Madrid, Avenida Puerta de Hierro s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6593-9500

Funding

DEHELIFE PROJECT CDTI-ABS 20230188
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Postbiotics-defined in 2021 by the International Scientific Association of Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) as preparations of inactivated microorganisms and/or their components that confer health benefits to the host-are a promising tool in veterinary medicine. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated their types, mechanisms of action, and physiological effects in dogs. A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to 10 October 2024. Eligible studies included peer-reviewed trials in dogs or mechanistic studies on postbiotics; studies in other species or without peer review were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed when appropriate. Of 157 records, 69 met the inclusion criteria, including 13 in vivo studies in dogs. Meta-analyses of selected outcomes showed no statistically significant differences between postbiotic and control groups. Evidence is limited by small sample sizes, strain heterogeneity, and varied study designs. Despite nonsignificant results, existing evidence from other species suggests that postbiotics improve the gut microbiota composition, modulate immune and inflammatory responses, reduce oxidative stress, and aid in the treatment of chronic conditions such as atopic dermatitis. Taken together with their potential role as an alternative to antimicrobial use, these findings highlight the need for further research in canine health to support the use of postbiotics in the treatment of common canine diseases, either as a standalone therapy or in combination with existing therapeutic options.

Indexed as

antimicrobial resistancedogsmicrobial metabolitesmicrobiotapostbioticsprobiotics

Identifiers

PMID40732081
PMCPMC12299376

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.