SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Efficacy and safety of probiotics in the treatment of pediatric asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Growing evidence suggests that probiotics may offer therapeutic benefits for asthma, attracting increasing scientific attention. To clarify their effects in pediatric patients with asthma, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using trial sequential analysis (TSA). Methods: A comprehensive search of five electronic databases was performed for studies published until August 30, 2025. Data on study characteristics, outcomes, and risk of bias were extracted. The meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3, and TSA was performed using TSA 0.9.5.10 beta. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as risk ratios, and continuous outcomes as mean difference or standardized mean difference (SMD). Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and the certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Results: Six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 731 pediatric patients with asthma were included. The pooled analysis indicated that probiotics significantly reduced interleukin-4 (IL-4) levels [SMD -0.66, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -1.24 to -0.08, Conclusion: Although probiotics showed statistically significant effects on IL-4 and INF-γ, the TSA results revealed that neither outcome crossed the monitoring boundaries, indicating that the evidence remains insufficient. Moreover, the very low certainty of the evidence and the fact that all included RCTs were conducted in China suggest that external validity is limited. In view of these uncertainties, the available evidence does not support the routine use of probiotics as an adjunctive therapy in pediatric asthma, and further large-scale, multicenter, RCTs are warranted. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251174081, identifier CRD420251174081.
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.