CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 265Probiotics and Fermented FoodsReproductive tract infections researchGastrointestinal motility and disorders

Choosing an appropriate probiotic product for your patient: An evidence-based practical guide

Open access
Sniffen, Jason C., McFarland, Lynne V., Evans, Charlesnika T., Goldstein, Ellie J. C.·2018·PLOS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0209205PMC PMC6306248
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Clinicians and patients face a daunting task when choosing the most appropriate probiotic for their specific needs. Available preparations encompass a diverse and continuously expanding product base, with most available products lacking evidence-based trials that support their use. Even when evidence exists, not all probiotic products are equally effective for all disease prevention or treatment indications. At this point in time, drug regulatory agencies offer limited assistance with regard to guidance and oversight in most countries, including the U.S. METHODS: We reviewed the current medical literature and sources on the internet to survey the types of available probiotic products and to determine which probiotics had evidence-based efficacy data. Standard medical databases from inception to June 2018 were searched and discussions with experts in the field were conducted. We graded the strength of the evidence for probiotics having multiple, randomized controlled trials and developed a guide for the practical selection of current probiotic products for specific uses. RESULTS: We found the efficacy of probiotic products is both strain-specific and disease-specific. Important factors involved in choosing the appropriate probiotic include matching the strain(s) with the targeted disease or condition, type of formulation, dose used and the source (manufacturing quality control and shelf-life). While we found many probiotic products lacked confirmatory trials, we found sufficient evidence for 22 different types of probiotics from 249 trials to be included. For example, several types of probiotics had strong evidence for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea [Saccharomyces boulardii I-745, a three-strain mixture (Lactobacillus acidophilus CL1285, L. casei Lbc80r, L. rhamnosus CLR2) and L. casei DN114001]. Strong evidence was also found for four types of probiotics for the prevention of a variety of other diseases/conditions (enteral-feed associated diarrhea, travellers' diarrhea, necrotizing enterocolits and side-effects associated with H. pylori treatments. The evidence was most robust for the treatment of pediatric acute diarrhea based on 59 trials (7 types of probiotics have strong efficacy), while an eight-strain multi-strain mixture showed strong efficacy for inflammatory bowel disease and two types of probiotics had strong efficacy for irritable bowel disease. Of the 22 types of probiotics reviewed, 15 (68%) had strong-moderate evidence for efficacy for at least one type of disease. CONCLUSION: The choice of an appropriate probiotic is multi-factored, based on the mode and type of disease indication and the specific efficacy of probiotic strain(s), as well as product quality and formulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This review was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42018103979.

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.0209205

Cites

79 of 79 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?

  • Our findings do not support recommendations for the use of specific probiotics for acute infectious diarrhoea in children.

    “Our findings do not support recommendations for the use of specific probiotics for acute infectious diarrhoea in children (Floch 2015; Guarino 2018; Sniffen 2018).”

    From Probiotics for treating acute infectious diarrhoea (2020) · cites this paper as Sniffen 2018

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says the opposite: it finds strong evidence of efficacy for several specific probiotics in treating pediatric acute diarrhea, and moderate evidence for another formulation. The Results section also reports that S. boulardii reduced diarrhea duration in children. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The most suitable single-strain or probiotic mixture can be selected based on knowledge and the summary of clinical studies reported in the literature.

    “Also, the most suitable single-strain or probiotic mixture can then be selected based on knowledge and the summary of clinical studies reported in the literature [182].”

    From The Potential Impact of Probiotics on Human Health: An Update on Their Health-Promoting Properties (2024) · cites this paper as [182]

  • Data from literature indicates that the first aspect of choosing a probiotic is related to the mode of therapy, prevention, or treatment, because different probiotics may be more suitable for each objective.

    “Data from the literature indicates that the first aspect is related to the mode of therapy, prevention, or treatment, because different probiotics may be more suitable for each objective [182].”

    From The Potential Impact of Probiotics on Human Health: An Update on Their Health-Promoting Properties (2024) · cites this paper as [182]

  • Certain probiotics are more suitable for the pediatric population compared with the adult population.

    “The second aspect refers to the fact that certain probiotics are more suitable for the pediatric population compared with the adult population.”

    From The Potential Impact of Probiotics on Human Health: An Update on Their Health-Promoting Properties (2024) · cites this paper as [182]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sniffen, J. C., McFarland, L. V., Evans, C. T., & Goldstein, E. J. C.
Affiliations
  • AdventHealth (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
McFarland, Lynne V.
ORCID
Venue
PLOS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2018-12-26
Volume
13
Issue
12
Pages
e0209205
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0209205
PMC
PMC6306248
OpenAlex
W2905982611
Cited by
265
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Bio-K+ International
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Reproductive tract infections research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
Keywords
probiotics, probiotic strain selection, antibiotic-associated diarrhea, Saccharomyces boulardii, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel disease, necrotizing enterocolitis, traveler's diarrhea, Helicobacter pylori treatment, probiotic regulation
MeSH terms
Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, 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