Cited by 84Probiotics and Fermented FoodsInflammatory Bowel DiseaseGut microbiota and health

Side Effects Associated with Probiotic Use in Adult Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Open access
Dore, Maria Pina, Bibbò, Stefano, Fresi, Gianni, Bassotti, Gabrio, Pes, Giovanni Mario·2019·Nutrients

Abstract

Probiotics demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, the safety profile of probiotics is insufficiently explored. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we examined the occurrence of side effects related to probiotic/synbiotic use in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of IBD patients as compared with placebo. Eligible RCTs in adult patients with IBD were identified by accessing the Medline database via PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials up to December 2018. Occurrence of side effects was retrieved and recorded. Data were pooled and the relative risks (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The low-moderate study heterogeneity, assessed by the I2 statistic, allowed to use of a fixed-effects modelling for meta-analysis. Nine RCTs among 2337, including 826 patients (442 treated with probiotics/symbiotic and 384 with placebo) were analyzed. Eight were double-blind RCTs, and six enrolled ulcerative colitis (UC) patients. Although the risk for the overall side effects (RR 1.35, 95%CI 0.93–1.94; I2 = 25%) and for gastrointestinal symptoms (RR 1.78, 95%CI 0.99–3.20; I2 = 20%) was higher in IBD patients taking probiotics than in those exposed to placebo, statistical significance was achieved only for abdominal pain (RR 2.59, 95%CI 1.28–5.22; I2 = 40%). In conclusion, despite the small number of RCTs and the variety of probiotic used and schedule across studies, these findings highlight the level of research effort still required to identify the most appropriate use of probiotics in IBD.

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 · 10.3390/nu11122913

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • A meta-analysis of nine controlled trials in patients with inflammatory bowel disease showed higher adverse event risk with probiotics/synbiotics.

    “A meta-analysis of nine controlled trials patients with inflammatory bowel disease showed higher AE risk with probiotics/synbiotics [111].”

    From Current Concepts in Probiotic Safety and Efficacy (2026) · cites this paper as [111]

  • The authors of the IBD meta-analysis found no clear explanation for higher adverse event risk due to variations in study design and regimens.

    “However, the authors found no clear explanation for this due to variations in study design and regimens.”

    From Current Concepts in Probiotic Safety and Efficacy (2026) · cites this paper as [111]

  • Common probiotic side effects are bloating, gas, diarrhea, constipation, nausea, thirst, headaches and migraines, and skin reactions.

    “Common probiotic side effects are bloating, gas, diarrhea, constipation, nausea [235,236], thirst, headaches and migraines, and skin reactions [234].”
  • Mild gastrointestinal symptoms (gas and bloating) from probiotics usually improve within a few weeks.

    “Mild gastrointestinal symptoms (gas and bloating), usually improve within a few weeks [236].”

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

Authors
Dore, M. P., Bibbò, S., Fresi, G., Bassotti, G., & Pes, G. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Sassari (IT)
  • University of Perugia (IT)
Corresponding author
Pes, Giovanni Mario
Venue
Nutrients
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-12-02
Volume
11
Issue
12
Pages
2913
ISSN
2072-6643 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2990681752
Cited by
83
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4
FWCI
0.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nutrients (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UnissResearch (Università degli Studi di Sassari) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Inflammatory Bowel Disease
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
Keywords
probiotics, synbiotics, inflammatory bowel disease, ulcerative colitis, adverse effects, gastrointestinal symptoms, abdominal pain, probiotic safety, placebo comparison
MeSH terms
Adult, Colitis, Ulcerative, Crohn Disease, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Abdominal Pain, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Probiotics, Synbiotics

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