Cited by 2,375Gut microbiota and healthProbiotics and Fermented FoodsInfant Nutrition and Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 142 of the 145 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 133 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Role of the gut microbiota in nutrition and health

Open access

Abstract

Ana M Valdes and colleagues discuss strategies for modulating the gut microbiota through diet and probiotics

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review summarizes evidence that the gut microbiota influences nutrition and health, with diet, drugs, and probiotics as key modulators. It highlights fibre/prebiotics and probiotics as promising interventions while noting evidence gaps and heterogeneity.

Key findings

  • The gut microbiota is described as a virtual organ: approximately 100 trillion micro-organisms inhabit the human gastrointestinal tract, and the microbiome encodes over three million genes compared with about 23,000 in the human genome, producing thousands of metabolites that influence host fitness, phenotype, and health.
  • Lower bacterial diversity is reproducibly observed in inflammatory bowel disease, psoriatic arthritis, type 1 diabetes, atopic eczema, coeliac disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes, and arterial stiffness; long-term weight gain over 10 years correlates with low microbiota diversity, exacerbated by low dietary fibre intake.
  • Diet and medication strongly influence microbiota composition; a large Dutch-Belgian population study found drugs explained 10% of community variation, and fibre/prebiotics increased microbiota diversity and SCFA production, with links to reduced type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
  • A review of 22 systematic reviews covering 313 trials and 46,826 participants found probiotic benefits for preventing *Clostridium difficile* diarrhoea (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.42), necrotising enterocolitis (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.56), antibiotic-associated diarrhoea in children (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.61), and eczema in infants/children (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.82).

Methods

  • Narrative review article synthesizing evidence on gut microbiota, nutrition, and health, including definitions, tables of dietary effects, and a summary of probiotic systematic reviews.
  • For probiotics, the authors searched the Cochrane library for “probiotic*” (39 studies) and Medline for “systematic review” or “meta-analysis” and “probiotic*” (31 studies), including 22 systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials published in the past five years, totaling 313 trials and 46,826 participants.
  • Main analysis is narrative synthesis of animal, observational, and interventional human studies; no formal meta-analysis is reported for the review as a whole.

Limitations

  • The paper states that animal model findings have unknown translation to humans, observational studies cannot measure causal relations, and probiotic studies were heterogeneous and not necessarily matched for type or dose of probiotic or length of intervention, limiting precise recommendations.
  • The paper states insufficient clinical evidence exists to draw clear conclusions or recommendations for restrictive diets and other dietary preferences based on gut microbiota, and calls for randomised controlled studies using consistent matrices.
  • Evident from the text: as a narrative review, selection and synthesis methods for non-probiotic sections are not systematically described, and many conclusions rely on animal models or cross-sectional associations.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.k2179

Cites

142 of 142 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 133 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 47
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 9
53 of 53
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most people who avoid gluten do not have coeliac disease or proved intolerance.

    “But most people who avoid gluten do not have coeliac disease or proved intolerance”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The microbiome is best thought of as a virtual organ of the body.

    “the microbiome is now best thought of as a virtual organ of the body.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The strongest level of evidence is obtained from interventional clinical studies, in particular randomised controlled trials.

    “The strongest level of evidence is obtained from interventional clinical studies—in particular, randomised controlled trials.”
3 of 3

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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Opposite effects of sucralose on bacterial abundance

    Major

    Table 1 says Bacteroides, Clostridia, and total aerobic bacteria were significantly lower, while the text says rats given sucralose had significantly higher proportions of all three.

  • Diastolic-pressure decrease called significant despite interval crossing zero

    Minor

    The table includes diastolic blood pressure among outcomes said to have significantly decreased, but its stated 95% confidence interval extends from −4.5 to 0.24.

  • LDL estimate falls outside its confidence interval

    Minor

    The reported LDL cholesterol estimate is positive 8.32 mg/dL, whereas both bounds of its stated 95% confidence interval are negative.

  • Citation 45 describes a different intervention and patient group

    Minor

    The text attributes a dietary-fibre intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes to reference 45, whose title instead describes lean-donor faeces in people with metabolic syndrome.

  • Fasting-glucose significance conflicts with its confidence interval

    Minor

    The table reports a significant reduction and P = 0.000, but its 95% confidence interval for the difference includes zero.

5 of 5

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 145 references

3 of the 145 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [103]Administration FaD Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 Subpart E: Specific Requirements for Health Claims [23 pp.] EFSA J 2016; 14: 4369.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 2,375

Metadata

Authors
Valdes, A. M., Walter, J., Segal, E., & Spector, T. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Spector, Tim D
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-06-13
Volume
361
Pages
k2179
ISSN
  • 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
OpenAlex
W2808457437
Cited by
2,375
References
145
Citations by year
2026: 234 · 2025: 350 · 2024: 377 · 2023: 418 · 2022: 369 · 2021: 277 · 2020: 213 · 2019: 115 · 2018: 18
FWCI
15.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (FP7/2007–2013)
  • Joint Programming Initiative A healthy diet for a healthy life
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (FP7/2007–2013, NF-SI-0507-10228, NF-SI-0514-10027)
  • King's College London
  • Israel Science Foundation (FP7/2007-2013)
  • Alberta Innovates
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (FP7/2007-2013)
  • Medical Research Council (MR/N030125/1, MR/N01183X/1)
  • NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Infant Nutrition and Health
Keywords
gut microbiota, nutrition, health, diet, probiotics, microbiota modulation
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Intestinal Absorption, Nutritional Physiological Phenomena, Nutrition Policy, Gastrointestinal Tract, Metabolomics

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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