CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 235Probiotics and Fermented FoodsGut microbiota and healthReproductive tract infections research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 117 of the 118 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Use of probiotics to correct dysbiosis of normal microbiota following disease or disruptive events : a systematic review

Open access
McFarland, Lynne V·2014·BMJ Open
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005047PMC PMC4156804
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence for the claim probiotics can correct dysbiosis of the normal microbiota resulting from disease or disruptive events. SETTING: Systematic review of published clinical trials of patients receiving a probiotic intervention for the prevention or treatment of various diseases. DATA SOURCES: Sources searched (1985-2013): PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, AMED and ISI Web of Science. Three on-line clinical trial registries were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, MetaRegister of Controlled Trials and National Institutes of Health. REVIEW METHODS: Included studies were randomised clinical trials of probiotic interventions having microbiological assays. Studies were evaluated following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for specific probiotic strains. A standard data extraction form was used to collect the raw data. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome is the degree of microbiota correction by specific probiotic strains. Secondary outcome was the association between the degree of dysbiosis correction and clinical efficacy. RESULTS: The review of the literature found three distinct study designs: model A (restoration) assayed patients enrolled with a healthy, undisturbed microbiota and then assayed postdisruptive event and probiotic therapy; model B (alteration) assayed patients with pre-existing disrupted microbiota and then postprobiotic therapy; model C (no dysbiosis) assayed volunteers with no disruptive event prebiotic and postprobiotic. From a total of 63 trials, 83% of the probiotic products using model A restored the microbiota, 56% using model B improved the microbiota and only 21% using model C had any effect on microbiota. Clinical efficacy was more commonly associated with strains capable of restoration of the normal microbiota. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to assess the degree of dysbiosis improvement is dependent on the enrolled population and the timing of microbiological assays. The functional claim for correcting dysbiosis is poorly supported for most probiotic strains and requires further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42014007224).

Overview

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005047

Cites

117 of 117 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Time sequence of events and three models of study designs determining three different degrees of dysbiosis correction by probiotics.
Figure 1 Time sequence of events and three models of study designs determining three different degrees of dysbiosis correction by probiotics.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Flow chart of literature review results (1985–2013) of included and excluded studies for the restoration or improvement of normal microbiota by probiotics. RCT, randomised-controlled trials; MOA, mechanism of action; NM, normal microbiota.
Figure 2 Flow chart of literature review results (1985–2013) of included and excluded studies for the restoration or improvement of normal microbiota by probiotics. RCT, randomised-controlled trials; MOA, mechanism of action; NM, normal microbiota.CC BY-NC · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 118 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Orrhage, 1994, Effects of supplements of Bifidobacterium longum and Lactobacillus acidophilus on the intestinal microbiota during administration of clindamycin, Microb Ecol Health Dis, 7, 17
  2. Girard-Pipau, 2002, Intestinal microflora, short chain and cellular fatty acids, influence of a probiotic S. boulardii, Microb Ecology Health Dis, 14, 220

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–235 of 235

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
McFarland, L. V.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
McFarland, Lynne V
ORCID
McFarland, Lynne V
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2014-08
Volume
4
Issue
8
Pages
e005047
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005047
PMC
PMC4156804
OpenAlex
W1987378090
Cited by
235
References
118
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 16
FWCI
1.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (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)
Topics
  • 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
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
Keywords
probiotics, dysbiosis, gut microbiota, microbiota restoration, probiotic strains, microbiological assay, disruptive events, clinical efficacy, prebiotics
MeSH terms
Disease, Humans, Severity of Illness Index, Treatment Outcome, Probiotics, Microbiota, Dysbiosis

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