Cited by 167Infant Nutrition and HealthProbiotics and Fermented FoodsNeonatal and Maternal Infections

Probiotics for Preterm Infants: A Strain‐Specific Systematic Review and Network Meta‐analysis

Open access
van den Akker, Chris H.P., van Goudoever, Johannes B., Szajewska, Hania, Embleton, Nicholas D., Hojsak, Iva, Reid, Daan, Shamir, Raanan, ESPGHAN Working Group for Probiotics, Prebiotics & Committee on Nutrition·2018·Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition

Abstract

Objectives: Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of probiotics to reduce morbidity and mortality in preterm infants have provided inconsistent results. Although meta‐analyses that group all of the used strains together are suggesting efficacy, it is not possible to determine the most effective strain that is more relevant to the clinician. We therefore used a network meta‐analysis (NMA) approach to identify strains with greatest efficacy. Methods: A PubMed search identified placebo‐controlled or head‐to‐head RCTs investigating probiotics in preterm infants. From trials that recorded mortality, necrotizing enterocolitis, late‐onset sepsis, or time until full enteral feeding as outcomes, data were extracted and Bayesian hierarchical random‐effects models were run to construct a NMA. Results: Fifty‐one RCTs involving 11,231 preterm infants were included. Most strains or combinations of strains were only studied in one or a few RCTs. Only 3 of 25 studied probiotic treatment combinations showed significant reduction in mortality rates. Seven treatments reduced necrotizing enterocolitis incidence, 2 reduced late‐onset sepsis, and 3 reduced time until full enteral feeding. There was no clear overlap of strains, which were effective on multiple outcome domains. Conclusions: This NMA showed efficacy in reducing mortality and morbidity only in a minority of the studied strains or combinations. This may be due to an inadequate number, or size, of RCTs, or due to a true lack of effect for certain species. Further large and adequately powered RCTs using strains with the greatest apparent efficacy will be needed to more precisely define optimal treatment strategies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mpg.0000000000001897

Cites

122 of 122 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Lack of data in preterm infants led to a caution about using D-lactate-producing probiotics in this population, although a controlled trial in healthy full-term infants showed that D-lactate-producing L. reuteri DSM-17938 did not result in acidosis and probiotic-containing infant formulas were not associated with acidosis.

    “Lack of data in preterm infants led to a caution about using D-lactate-producing probiotics in this population,125 although a controlled trial in healthy full-term infants showed that D-lactate-producing L. reuteri DSM-17938 did not result in acidosis126 and probiotic-containing infant formulas were not associated with acidosis.127”

    From Emerging issues in probiotic safety: 2023 perspectives (2023) · cites this paper as [125]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, et al. Expert consensus document. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics con- sensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;11:506-14.
  2. Baucells BJ, Mercadal Hally M, Alvarez Sanchez AT, et al. Probiotic associations in the prevention of necrotising enterocolitis and the reduction of late-onset sepsis and neonatal mortality in preterm infants under 1,500 g: A systematic review. An Pediatr (Barc) 2016;85:247- 55.
  3. Bell MJ, Ternberg JL, Feigin RD, et al. Neonatal necrotizing enter- ocolitis. Therapeutic decisions based upon clinical staging. Ann Surg 1978;187:1-7.
  4. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Scientific opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis Bb-12. EFSA J 2011;9:2047-66.
  5. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3.5. Co- penhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration; 2014.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van den Akker, C. H. P., van Goudoever, J. B., Szajewska, H., Embleton, N. D., Hojsak, I., Reid, D., Shamir, R., & ESPGHAN Working Group for Probiotics, P. &. C. O. N.
Affiliations
  • Department of Paediatrics Emma Children's Hospital—AMC Amsterdam The Netherlands
  • Medical University of Warsaw (PL)
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • Tel Aviv University (IL)
Venue
Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-07
Volume
67
Issue
1
Pages
103-122
ISSN
  • 0277-2116 (ISSN-L)
  • 1536-4801
OpenAlex
W2793807463
Cited by
167
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 6
FWCI
2.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • DiVA at Umeå University (Umeå University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Infant Nutrition and Health
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Neonatal and Maternal Infections
Keywords
probiotics, preterm infants, probiotic strains, necrotizing enterocolitis, late-onset sepsis, infant mortality, full enteral feeding
MeSH terms
Saccharomyces boulardii, Bacillus coagulans, Bacillus clausii, Network Meta-Analysis, Bifidobacterium, Enteral Nutrition, Humans, Infant, Newborn, Infant, Premature, Lactobacillus, Time Factors, Survival Rate, Sepsis, Probiotics, Enterocolitis, Necrotizing, Streptococcus thermophilus

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review