SynthesisProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2026
Safety of One of the Most Commonly Used Probiotic Strains: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Reported Adverse Events.
Synthesis in Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- When probiotics guidelines differ: a practical guide for clinicians and researchers.Gut microbes · 2026Article
- FMT and Bifidobacterium quadruple viable tablets supplementation modulate gut microbiota to ameliorate high-altitude exposure induced colonic injury.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Probiotics are defined as live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host. Probiotics are widely used in everyday foods and supplements but very few studies have thoroughly evaluated safety. We evaluated adverse events (AEs) for one of the most widely used strains, Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis (BB-12). A systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) were conducted to evaluate adverse events in human trials using BB-12. Two independent reviewers separately searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the following mesh words for inclusion: English language, double-blinded, randomized or random allocation, and placebo-controlled trial of BB-12. One hundred and eighty-one studies were identified of which 35 qualified for inclusion. All authors of the 35 studies were contacted to perform an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA). Results from the MA studies showed there was no statistical difference in the rates of AE between the probiotic (15.2%) and placebo (14%) groups, odds ratio = 1.10, 95% confidence interval (0.88, 1.36), p = .40. Further, results from the IPDMA showed statistically similar unadjusted (27% vs. 25%) and adjusted rates of AE (43% vs. 41%) between BB-12 and placebo, with the relative risk of AE being 1.05, 95% confidence interval (.94, 1.15). Both meta-analysis approaches showed no difference in the rates of AE for the BB-12 and placebo groups. The data support the safety of wide usage of BB-12. However, half of the RCTs analyzed for the MA did not report AE data. This is a major limitation of published literature. This study has been registered in PROSPERO: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023434556.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40892162What 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.