SynthesisFrontiers in immunology2026
Effects of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on lung function and symptoms in adults with bronchial asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. 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
Background: Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics may exert beneficial effects on asthma by modulating the gut microbiota and the "gut-lung axis". However, no systematic review or meta-analysis has specifically focused on adult asthma patients. Objective: To systematically evaluate the effects of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on lung function, symptom control, and inflammatory markers in adults with bronchial asthma. Methods: Five electronic databases were systematically searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to May 2026 (PROSPERO registration: CRD420261412024). Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Outcomes for which quantitative data could not be extracted were summarized narratively. The Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool and GRADE framework were used to evaluate risk of bias and grade evidence quality for primary endpoints, respectively. Results: 13 RCTs were included, 7 of which provided extractable continuous quantitative data. Pooled results demonstrated significant elevations in absolute FEV Conclusion: Moderate-quality evidence supports a mild beneficial effect of multi-strain Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD420261412024.
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.