SynthesisFrontiers in microbiology2025
Synthesis in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gut microbiota-mediated neuroinflammation following stroke: mechanisms and intervention strategies.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Gut-brain axis: a revolutionary paradigm in the pathogenesis and treatment of ischemic stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
- Prevention and management of enteral nutrition-related diarrhea in stroke patients: barriers and enablers from best evidence to best practice.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
Background: The benefits and risks of Methods: Eight databases were systematically searched for relevant literature up to January 1, 2025. Two researchers independently screened the records, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 1.0 (RoB 1.0). Meta-analysis, sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and publication bias assessments were conducted with RevMan 5.4 software. Results: Nine randomized controlled trials and 777 patients were included in the analysis. Meta-analysis showed that regarding nutritional status, compared with the EN group, the BCP combination group significantly increased albumin (mean difference [MD] = 4.55, 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.66 to 5.45, Conclusion: BCP combined with EN can improve nutritional status, neurological function, intestinal barrier function, and immune function and reduce adverse events for patients with SIS. This approach represents a potential adjuvant treatment strategy for SIS. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420250653156, CRD420250653156.
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.