Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41291638›Full record

SynthesisBMC complementary medicine and therapies2025

Efficacy and safety of probiotic supplements on cognitive function: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Nancy Calzada-Gonzales, Ismael Moreno-Colina, Linn Chu-Fuentes, Daniel Andrade-Girón, Hugo E Tito-Chura, Carlos Quispe-Vicuña, Pedro I Torres-Balarezo, Anthony Bautista-Pariona, Joshuan J Barboza

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
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

9 authors.

Nancy Calzada-GonzalesEscuela Profesional de Odontología, Universidad Nacional Hermilio Valdizan, Huánuco, Peru.
Ismael Moreno-ColinaIsmael Moreno Colina. Hospital del niño Francisco Icaza Bustamante, Guayaquil, Ecuador.
Linn Chu-FuentesEscuela Profesional de Medicina Humana, Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego, Trujillo, Perú.
Daniel Andrade-GirónUniversidad Nacional José Faustino Sánchez Carrión, Huacho. Lima, Peru.
Hugo E Tito-ChuraDepartamento de Ingeniería de Sistemas e Informática, Universidad Nacional de Moquegua, Moquegua, Perú, Peru.
Carlos Quispe-VicuñaTau-Relaped Group, Trujillo, Peru.
Pedro I Torres-BalarezoUniversidad Central del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.
Anthony Bautista-ParionaEscuela de Medicina Humana, Universidad Nacional del Santa, Nuevo Chimbote, Perú.
Joshuan J BarbozaEscuela de Medicina, Universidad Señor de Sipan, Chiclayo, Perú. jbarbozameca@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of probiotic supplementation on cognitive function in individuals over 18 years of age.

methodsRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the impact of probiotics on cognitive function were included. Searches were conducted across four medical databases from inception to August 2024. The outcomes were cognitive function measured by Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Cognition Categorical Fluency Test (CFT), and adverse events. Data were extracted and analyzed using a random-effects model, with results reported as mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). To evaluate statistical heterogeneity, the I² statistic and the tau squared value (τ²) were used. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool, and the certainty of evidence was evaluated with GRADE.

resultsA total of 34 RCTs involving 2,390 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Limited evidence suggests a possible improvement in cognitive function from probiotics use at 12 weeks (MD 4.23, 95% CI 2.77 to 5.68; certainty of evidence (CoE) was low, I² = 0%) for MMSE and cognitive function (MD 1.21; 95% CI 0.06 to 2.36; certainty of evidence (CoE) was low; I² = 35%) for MoCA; however, due to the very low certainty found, the evidence is very uncertain. On the other hand, probiotic supplementation can improve cognitive performance, as measured by CFT (MD 3.94, 95% CI: 3.20 to 4.69, low certainty of evidence; I² = 0%). Probiotics did not reduce the risk of any adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.27; Certainty of evidence (CoE) was Very Low).

conclusionsOur study found that probiotics improved cognitive function, especially after 12 weeks of supplementation, using the MoCA test. However, although probiotics show potential benefits, the current evidence remains highly uncertain, warranting further rigorous trials.

Indexed as

CognitionDietary SupplementsProbioticsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCognitive functionGut-brain axisMeta-analysisProbioticsRandomized clinical trials

Identifiers

PMID41291638
PMCPMC12645680

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.