SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2025
Efficacy of probiotic intervention in unmedicated depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mechanism-First Psychobiotics: Fermented Vegetables, Dairy, and Soy for Depression and Anxiety.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the independent efficacy and safety of probiotics in unmedicated adults with depression, with a focus on studies approximating monotherapy conditions. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251015474). Four major databases were searched through March 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating probiotic monotherapy in individuals with depression not receiving psychotropic treatment. All forms of standardized probiotic formulations (e.g., capsules, sachets) were eligible. The primary outcome was the change in validated depression rating scales. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were synthesized using a random-effects model. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses addressed intervention type, assessment method (self-report vs. clinician-rated scales), and funding source. Safety outcomes were systematically assessed. Results: Six RCTs with 341 randomly assigned participants (169 probiotic, 172 placebo) were included. Probiotic monotherapy was associated with a small but statistically significant reduction in depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.38, 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.18, p = 0.0002, I² = 51%). Exploratory subgroup analysis indicated potential greater benefit in mild to moderate depression compared to major depressive disorder. Sensitivity analysis excluding industry-funded trials or studies with adjunctive agents resulted in non-significant findings (SMD = -0.21, 95% CI: -0.65 to 0.23, p = 0.35). Minor adverse events were reported, with no significant difference between groups and no serious adverse events. Conclusion: Probiotic monotherapy may provide modest improvement in depressive symptoms and is generally safe for unmedicated individuals with mild to moderate depression. Given the small effect size, possible industry-related bias, and study heterogeneity, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. Larger, independently-funded RCTs are warranted to confirm efficacy and clarify mechanisms. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, iidentifier CRD420251015474.
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.