CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 474Probiotics and Fermented FoodsGastrointestinal motility and disordersGut microbiota and health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 88 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Meta-Analysis of Probiotic Efficacy for Gastrointestinal Diseases

Open access
Ritchie, Marina L., Romanuk, Tamara N.·2012·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0034938PMC PMC3329544
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses on the effects of probiotics on specific gastrointestinal diseases have generally shown positive effects on disease prevention and treatment; however, the relative efficacy of probiotic use for treatment and prevention across different gastrointestinal diseases, with differing etiology and mechanisms of action, has not been addressed. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We included randomized controlled trials in humans that used a specified probiotic in the treatment or prevention of Pouchitis, Infectious diarrhea, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Helicobacter pylori, Clostridium difficile Disease, Antibiotic Associated Diarrhea, Traveler's Diarrhea, or Necrotizing Enterocolitis. Random effects models were used to evaluate efficacy as pooled relative risks across the eight diseases as well as across probiotic species, single vs. multiple species, patient ages, dosages, and length of treatment. Probiotics had a positive significant effect across all eight gastrointestinal diseases with a relative risk of 0.58 (95% (CI) 0.51-0.65). Six of the eight diseases: Pouchitis, Infectious diarrhea, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Helicobacter pylori, Clostridium difficile Disease, and Antibiotic Associated Diarrhea, showed positive significant effects. Traveler's Diarrhea and Necrotizing Enterocolitis did not show significant effects of probiotcs. Of the 11 species and species mixtures, all showed positive significant effects except for Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus plantarum, and Bifidobacterium infantis. Across all diseases and probiotic species, positive significant effects of probiotics were observed for all age groups, single vs. multiple species, and treatment lengths. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Probiotics are generally beneficial in treatment and prevention of gastrointestinal diseases. Efficacy was not observed for Traveler's Diarrhea or Necrotizing Enterocolitis or for the probiotic species L. acidophilus, L. plantarum, and B. infantis. When choosing to use probiotics in the treatment or prevention of gastrointestinal disease, the type of disease and probiotic species (strain) are the most important factors to take into consideration.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0034938

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram showing an overview of the study selection process.
Figure 1 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) flow diagram showing an overview of the study selection process.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 The effect size (risk ratio) for the overall effects of probiotics in the prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) diseases including the 95% confidence intervals. The diseases: Antibiotic associated diarrhea (AAD), Clostridium difficile disease (CDD), Helicobacter pylori positive (HPP), Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), Infectious diarrhea (ID), Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC), Traveller's diarrhea (TD), and Pouchitis are labelled as well as the mean effect sizes for each disease. The author, date, measure (risk ratio (95% CI), and p value are shown. Risk ratios below one favor the probiotic while risk ratios above one favor the placebo.
Figure 2 The effect size (risk ratio) for the overall effects of probiotics in the prevention and treatment of gastrointestinal (GI) diseases including the 95% confidence intervals. The diseases: Antibiotic associated diarrhea (AAD), Clostridium difficile disease (CDD), Helicobacter pylori positive (HPP), Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), Infectious diarrhea (ID), Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NEC), Traveller's diarrhea (TD), and Pouchitis are labelled as well as the mean effect sizes for each disease. The author, date, measure (risk ratio (95% CI), and p value are shown. Risk ratios below one favor the probiotic while risk ratios above one favor the placebo.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 The effect size (risk ratio) for gastrointenstinal diseases and for probiotic species. (A) The effect size including the 95% confidence intervals for the total events of Antibiotic associated diarrhea (AAD), Clostridium difficile disease (CDD), Helicobacter pylori positive (HPP), Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), Infectious diarrhea (ID), Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NE), Traveller's diarrhea (TD), and Pouchitis during which probiotics were taken. (B) The effect size including 95% confidence intervals for the type of probiotic species that were used to treat and prevent gastrointestinal disease. The species that were used were VSL#3, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG), Saccromyces boulardii, Bifidobacterium infantis, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, Clostridium butyricum, Enterococcus faecum, Lactobacillus plantarium, Bifidobacterium lactis and Lactobacillus acidophilus combined with Bifidobacterium infantis. Risk ratios below one favor the probiotic while risk ratios above one favor the placebo.
Figure 3 The effect size (risk ratio) for gastrointenstinal diseases and for probiotic species. (A) The effect size including the 95% confidence intervals for the total events of Antibiotic associated diarrhea (AAD), Clostridium difficile disease (CDD), Helicobacter pylori positive (HPP), Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), Infectious diarrhea (ID), Necrotizing Enterocolitis (NE), Traveller's diarrhea (TD), and Pouchitis during which probiotics were taken. (B) The effect size including 95% confidence intervals for the type of probiotic species that were used to treat and prevent gastrointestinal disease. The species that were used were VSL#3, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG), Saccromyces boulardii, Bifidobacterium infantis, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, Clostridium butyricum, Enterococcus faecum, Lactobacillus plantarium, Bifidobacterium lactis and Lactobacillus acidophilus combined with Bifidobacterium infantis. Risk ratios below one favor the probiotic while risk ratios above one favor the placebo.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 The effect size (risk ratio) for the subgroup analyses on age groups, dose, treatment length and multiple or single probiotic species. (A) The effect size including the 95% confidence intervals for the age groups that had taken the probiotic vs. the controls. Age groups included were: adults (>18 yrs), children (3≤18 yrs) and infants (0–3 yrs). (B) The effect size including the 95% confidence intervals for dose of probiotic. The doses that were included were: 1–9×1011, 1012 CFU/day; 1–5.5×106, 107, 108 CFU/day; 1–9×109 CFU/day; 1–5×1010 CFU/day. (C) The effect size including the 95% confidence intervals for treatment length. Treatment lengths that were included were: 1–2 weeks, 3–4 weeks, 5–8 weeks and 9–240 weeks. (D) The effect size including the 95% confidence intervals for multiple or single species of probiotics. Probiotics that contain more than one species were considered multiple species, while probiotics only administered as one species were considered single species. Risk ratios below one favor the probiotic while risk ratios above one favor the placebo.
Figure 4 The effect size (risk ratio) for the subgroup analyses on age groups, dose, treatment length and multiple or single probiotic species. (A) The effect size including the 95% confidence intervals for the age groups that had taken the probiotic vs. the controls. Age groups included were: adults (>18 yrs), children (3≤18 yrs) and infants (0–3 yrs). (B) The effect size including the 95% confidence intervals for dose of probiotic. The doses that were included were: 1–9×1011, 1012 CFU/day; 1–5.5×106, 107, 108 CFU/day; 1–9×109 CFU/day; 1–5×1010 CFU/day. (C) The effect size including the 95% confidence intervals for treatment length. Treatment lengths that were included were: 1–2 weeks, 3–4 weeks, 5–8 weeks and 9–240 weeks. (D) The effect size including the 95% confidence intervals for multiple or single species of probiotics. Probiotics that contain more than one species were considered multiple species, while probiotics only administered as one species were considered single species. Risk ratios below one favor the probiotic while risk ratios above one favor the placebo.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Funnel plot asymmetry used to determine publication bias. Log of the risk ratios were plotted against the standard error of the risk ratio of each study to identify asymmetry in the distribution of trials. Gaps in the funnel plot suggest potential publication bias. The synthesis estimate and the 0.01 limit are shown to distinguish asymmetry.
Figure 5 Funnel plot asymmetry used to determine publication bias. Log of the risk ratios were plotted against the standard error of the risk ratio of each study to identify asymmetry in the distribution of trials. Gaps in the funnel plot suggest potential publication bias. The synthesis estimate and the 0.01 limit are shown to distinguish asymmetry.CC BY · 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 88 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. J Boulloche, 1994, Management of acute diarrhoea in infants and young children: controlled study of the anti-diarrhoeal efficacy of killed L. acidophilus (LB Strain) versus a placebo and a reference drug (loperamide)., Ann Pediatr, 41, 457
  2. JY Bodilis, 1983, Controlled clinical trial of Lacteol Fort compared with a placebo and reference drug in the treatment of acute diarrhea in the adult., Med Actuelle, 10, 232
  3. M Simren, 2006, Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v on symptoms and rectal sensitivity in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) - A randomized, double-blind controlled trial., Gastroenterology, 130, A600

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 474

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Ritchie, M. L., & Romanuk, T. N.
Affiliations
Dalhousie University (CA)
Corresponding author
Ritchie, Marina L.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2012-04-18
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
e34938
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0034938
PMC
PMC3329544
OpenAlex
W2010508425
Cited by
474
References
88
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 28 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 14
FWCI
5.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DalSpace (Dalhousie University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
Keywords
probiotics, gastrointestinal diseases, probiotic efficacy, pouchitis, infectious diarrhea, irritable bowel syndrome, Helicobacter pylori, antibiotic-associated diarrhea, traveler's diarrhea, necrotizing enterocolitis, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus plantarum, Bifidobacterium infantis, disease prevention
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Gastrointestinal Diseases, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Publication Bias, Probiotics

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