Cited by 58Gastrointestinal motility and disordersProbiotics and Fermented FoodsMicrobial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology

Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics in chronic constipation: Outstanding aspects to be considered for the current evidence

Open access
Araújo, Maísa Miranda, Botelho, Patrícia Borges·2022·Frontiers in Nutrition

Abstract

This integrative aimed to evaluate the effects and the potential mechanism of action of prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics on constipation-associated gastrointestinal symptoms and to identify issues that still need to be answered. A literature search was performed in the PubMed database. Animal models (n = 23) and clinical trials (n = 39) were included. In animal studies, prebiotic, probiotic, and synbiotic supplementation showed a decreased colonic transit time (CTT) and an increase in the number and water content of feces. In humans, inulin is shown to be the most promising prebiotic, while B. lactis and L. casei Shirota probiotics were shown to increase defecation frequency, the latter strain being more effective in improving stool consistency and constipation symptoms. Overall, synbiotics seem to reduce CTT, increase defecation frequency, and improve stool consistency with a controversial effect on the improvement of constipation symptoms. Moreover, some aspects of probiotic use in constipation-related outcomes remain unanswered, such as the best dose, duration, time of consumption (before, during, or after meals), and matrices, as well as their effect and mechanisms on the regulation of inflammation in patients with constipation, on polymorphisms associated with constipation, and on the management of constipation via 5-HT. Thus, more high-quality randomized control trials (RCTs) evaluating these lacking aspects are necessary to provide safe conclusions about their effectiveness in managing intestinal constipation.

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 · 10.3389/fnut.2022.935830

Cites

124 of 124 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 the included studies, the most common probiotics ingredients were Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus, and the most common prebiotics ingredients were inulin, fructooligosaccharide and psyllium.

    “In our included studies, the most popular probiotics ingredients were Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus, while the most popular prebiotics ingredients were inulin, fructooligosaccharide and psyllium.51”

    From Efficacy in bowel movement and change of gut microbiota on adult functional constipation patients treated with probiotics-containing products: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [51]

    The Results sections (page unavailable) identify Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus strains as the most frequently assessed probiotics and inulin as the most evaluated prebiotic in the review’s human studies. They mention fructooligosaccharides and psyllium, but do not identify either as among the most common prebiotic ingredients. The source also cannot establish which ingredients were most common in the citing authors’ own included studies. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 1

  1. [103]Shea-Donohue T Notari L Sun R Zhao A. Mechansims of smooth muscle repsonses to inflammation. Neurogastroenterol Motil. (2012) 24: 802– 11. 22908862 PMC4068333

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Araújo, M. M., & Botelho, P. B.
Affiliations
Universidade de Brasília (BR)
Corresponding author
Botelho, Patrícia Borges
Venue
Frontiers in Nutrition
Published
2022-12-08
Volume
9
Pages
935830-935830
ISSN
2296-861X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4311865063
Cited by
58
References
124
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 14
FWCI
2.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Nutrition (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Microbial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
Keywords
probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, chronic constipation, colonic transit time, inulin, Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis, Lactobacillus casei Shirota, stool frequency, stool consistency, serotonin, inflammation, genetic polymorphism

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