ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Adjunctive Synbiotic Therapy for
Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSynbiotics may improve the effectiveness of antibiotic-based
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420251236314). PubMed, Scopus, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to their respective final search dates in November and December 2025 for randomized controlled trials comparing antibiotic-based eradication therapy plus a synbiotic with the corresponding regimen without synbiotics. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled for intention-to-treat (ITT), per-protocol (PP), and safety outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.
resultsSix randomized controlled trials enrolling 486 participants were included; 446 participants contributed to the ITT analysis and 416 to the PP analysis. One trial was judged to be at high risk of bias, whereas five raised some concerns. The ITT analysis demonstrated improved eradication with adjunctive synbiotics (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.04-1.34;
conclusionsAdjunctive synbiotics may modestly improve
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.