Cited by 628Gastrointestinal motility and disordersProbiotics and Fermented FoodsGut microbiota and health

Systematic review with meta‐analysis: the efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics and antibiotics in irritable bowel syndrome

Open access
Ford, Alexander C., Harris, Lucinda A., Lacy, Brian E., Quigley, Eamonn M. M., Moayyedi, Paul·2018·Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics

Abstract

Summary: Background: Irritable bowel syndrome ( IBS ) is a chronic functional bowel disorder. Disturbances in the gastrointestinal microbiome may be involved in its aetiology. Aim: To perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis to examine the efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics and antibiotics in IBS . Methods: MEDLINE , EMBASE , and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to July 2017). Randomised controlled trials ( RCT s) recruiting adults with IBS , comparing prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics or antibiotics with placebo or no therapy were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk ( RR ) of remaining symptomatic after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval ( CI ). Continuous data were pooled using a standardised mean difference with a 95% CI . Results: The search identified 4017 citations. Data for prebiotics and synbiotics were sparse. Fifty‐three RCT s of probiotics, involving 5545 patients, were eligible. Particular combinations of probiotics, or specific species and strains, appeared to have beneficial effects on global IBS symptoms and abdominal pain, but it was not possible to draw definitive conclusions about their efficacy. There were five trials of similar design that used rifaximin in non‐constipated IBS patients, which was more effective than placebo ( RR of symptoms persisting = 0.84; 95% CI 0.79‐0.90). Adverse events were no more common with probiotics or antibiotics. Conclusions: Which particular combination, species or strains of probiotics are effective for IBS remains, for the most part, unclear. Rifaximin has modest efficacy in improving symptoms in non‐constipated IBS .

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 · 10.1111/apt.15001

Cites

102 of 102 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?

  • In previous meta-analyses, definitive conclusions about efficacy of specific probiotics could not be drawn because of small numbers of trials and lack of uniformity in reporting endpoints.

    “In our previous meta-analyses, 22 -24 we were unable to draw de fi nitive conclusions about the ef fi cacy of speci fi c probiotics because of a small number of trials of some combinations, species, or strains, as well as a lack of uniformity in reporting of endpoints.”

    From Efficacy of Probiotics in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Discussion (page not available in our copy) says definitive conclusions about particular probiotics remain impossible and notes that some combinations were studied in only small numbers of RCTs. The paper discusses different outcome measures, but the passages found do not identify a lack of uniformity in endpoint reporting as a reason for that uncertainty. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The efficacy of probiotics and faecal microbiota transplantation is inconsistent.

    “The efficacy of probiotics and faecal microbiota transplantation is inconsistent”

    From Irritable bowel syndrome (2020) · cites this paper as [105]

    The Discussion (page not provided) reports mixed results across probiotic combinations, species and strains, with heterogeneity between trials and no definitive conclusion about efficacy. That supports the probiotic portion of the claim. The paper does not report on the efficacy of faecal microbiota transplantation; searches for that term found no relevant passage. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Some probiotics may be beneficial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

    “Some probiotics may be bene fi cial in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but differences in species and strains used, as well as endpoints reported, have hampered attempts to make speci fi c recommendations as to which should be preferred.”
  • In prior evidence synthesis, for the most part, no recommendations concerning efficacy of particular combinations or strains could be made.

    “where, for the most part, no recommendations concerning ef fi cacy of particular combinations of probiotics or strains could be made.”
  • We updated a prior meta-analysis of 37 RCTs, incorporating data from 8 new trials and randomising 6352 patients.

    “We updated a prior meta-analysis of 37 RCTs, 158 incorporating data from 8 new trials [166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173] and randomising 6352 patients.”

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: 3

  1. [5]5. Palsson OS, Whitehead WE, van Tilburg MA, et al. Rome IV diagnostic questionnaires and tables for investigators and clinicians. Gastroenterology 2016;150:1481-1491.
  2. [17]17. Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, et al. Expert consensus document. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;11:506-14.
  3. [53]53. Gade J, Thorn P. Paraghurt for patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Scand J Prim Health Care 1989;7:23-26.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ford, A. C., Harris, L. A., Lacy, B. E., Quigley, E. M. M., & Moayyedi, P.
Affiliations
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • Mayo Clinic in Arizona (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Houston Methodist (US)
  • McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
Ford, Alexander C.
Venue
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-10-08
Volume
48
Issue
10
Pages
1044-1060
ISSN
  • 0269-2813 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2036
OpenAlex
W2896437365
Cited by
619
References
102
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 79 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 87 · 2021: 77 · 2020: 127 · 2019: 52 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2
FWCI
11.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • American College of Gastroenterology
  • Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
Keywords
irritable bowel syndrome, probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, antibiotics, rifaximin, gastrointestinal microbiome, abdominal pain, symptom relief, functional bowel disorders
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Rifaximin, Adult, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Gastrointestinal Agents, Humans, Abdominal Pain, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Probiotics, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Prebiotics, Synbiotics

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