ArticleNutrition & metabolism2026
Strain-specific and dose-dependent clinical efficacy of probiotics on bone mineral density improvement in postmenopausal women: a meta-analysis based on RCT studies.
Article in Nutrition & metabolism, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProbiotics may provide a safe and feasible alternative or adjuvant strategy for osteoporosis. However, there is no consensus on its strain specificity, dose threshold, and site differences. This meta-analysis quantitatively evaluates the strain-specific and dose-dependent clinical efficacy of probiotics on bone mineral density (BMD) in postmenopausal women.
methodsSystematically search PubMed, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov up to December 24, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of probiotic/synbiotic interventions in postmenopausal women were included. A fixed-effects model was used to pool the standardized mean differences (SMD). Subgroup analyses were conducted based on probiotic genus (with Lactobacillus vs. without Lactobacillus), strain number (single vs. multi-strain), dose (≥ 1 × 10¹⁰ vs. <1 × 10¹⁰ CFU/d), and intervention duration.
resultsA total of 11 RCTs (12 reports, n = 1388) were entered into the analysis. Overall change in BMD was not significant (SMD = 0.01, 95% CI = -0.06, 0.08, I² = 0%). Lumber spine BMD was significantly higher in Lactobacillus subgroup (SMD = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.37). Lactobacillus showed negative trends in hip (SMD = -0.07) and femur (SMD = -0.08) BMD. Exploratory analyses suggested a potential dose-response plateau at 1 × 10⁹-7.5 × 10⁹ CFU/d. Prolonged interventions (> 6 months) or higher dose did not increase lumbar gains and conversely turned the hip/femur effect negative. Safety profile did not differ from placebo. Based on the GRADE framework, evidence was moderate for lumbar spine BMD and adverse events but low for hip and femur BMD. This means research is needed to refine these estimates.
conclusionsEffect of probiotics on BMD in postmenopausal women is site-genus-dose dependent. A single Lactobacillus strain at 1 × 10⁹-7.5 × 10⁹ CFU/d for 3-6 months is recommended for lumbar spine protection. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42919406What 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.