SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2026
Probiotics and synbiotics as adjunctive therapies for heart failure: a systematic review with network and pairwise meta-analyses.
Synthesis in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the use of probiotics and synbiotics as microbiome-directed adjunctive therapies for heart failure (HF), while explicitly determining whether any eligible prebiotic-only trials existed. Methods: We searched eight English- and Chinese-language databases from inception to 1 May 2026 and conducted expanded sensitivity searches in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science on 15 July 2026. Random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA) was used only for connected multi-node evidence; two-node evidence was analyzed pairwise. As placebo, usual care, and food comparators were not clinically exchangeable, comparator-stratified sensitivity analyses of direct evidence were conducted using restricted maximum likelihood (REML) and Hartung-Knapp (HK) confidence intervals (CIs). Results: A total of 12 randomized studies were included in the systematic review (14 reports); 11 contributed to at least one primary or sensitivity quantitative analysis, and 10 contributed to the primary analyses. The revision-stage search audit identified no additional eligible randomized trials and no eligible prebiotic-only trials. Across all the trial populations, 1,021 participants were randomized, 973 of whom were allocated to review-eligible arms. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) network included 7 studies and 539 participants in the analysis set; however, this network was star-shaped, had no closed loops, and depended on a combined comparator node. The exploratory NMA estimate for multi-strain bacterial probiotics versus the combined comparator was a mean difference (MD) of 2.13 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.10 to 4.35). The comparator-stratified sensitivity analysis for usual care yielded an MD of 1.83 percentage points (95% CI -2.33 to 5.98). All synthesized results were assessed as having either some concern or a high risk of bias. The effect estimates were generally imprecise, and the certainty of evidence was low or very low. Adverse event definitions and denominators were inconsistent. Conclusion: The available evidence is sparse and affected by significant non-transitivity, risk of bias, and imprecision. Network comparisons and rankings should be considered hypothesis-generating; therefore, no probiotic or synbiotic adjunct can be recommended for routine HF management. Systematic review registration: CRD420261413595. Public URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261413595.
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.