SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2025
Effects of probiotics on patients with Prader-Willi syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Prader-Willi Syndrome (PWS) involves growth, obesity, and behavioral challenges; probiotics may improve symptoms through the gut-brain axis, aiding treatment. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of probiotic supplementation on individuals with PWS in terms of probiotic abundance, psycho-social outcomes, behavioral issues, and adverse events. Methods: We systematically conducted searches across PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and the Web of Science. Our study included relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before February 2025. Two independent review authors evaluated study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies. Data synthesis employed a random-effects model based on heterogeneity test results and was presented as the standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: A total of five RCTs were included. Probiotic supplementation led to a notable increase in the abundance of the Conclusion: The validation of a probiotic treatment for PWS is currently an aspirational goal. Additional investigation is required to comprehensively comprehend the connection between PWS and the gut microbiome, as well as its potential ramifications for the disease phenotype. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, CRD42023416791.
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.