Cited by 206Probiotics and Fermented FoodsGut microbiota and healthAdipokines, Inflammation, and Metabolic Diseases

Effects of Probiotics on Metabolic Syndrome: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

Open access
Tenorio-Jiménez, Carmen, Martínez-Ramírez, María José, Gil, Ángel, Gómez-Llorente, Carolina·2020·Nutrients

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate whether the use of probiotics has any effect on the components of metabolic syndrome (MetS) before patients develop type 2 diabetes. A qualitative systematic review, following the Cochrane methodology, and a comprehensive literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted in PubMed and Scopus from inception until 4 July 2019. According to our inclusion criteria, nine clinical studies were finally analyzed, corresponding to six RCTs. Probiotics intake in patients with MetS resulted in improvements in body mass index, blood pressure, glucose metabolism, and lipid profile in some studies. Regarding inflammatory biomarkers, probiotics also positively affected the soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (sVCAM-1), interleukine-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and thrombomodulin. Despite the diversity of the published studies, the intake of probiotics for patients with MetS may offer a discrete improvement in some of the clinical characteristics of the MetS and a decrease in inflammatory biomarkers. Nevertheless, these beneficial effects seem to be marginal compared to drug therapy and a healthy lifestyle and clinically non-relevant.

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/nu12010124

Cites

31 of 31 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?

  • Clinical outcomes of probiotics vary widely because host genetics, baseline microbiota, diet, medications, and comorbidities modulate response and susceptibility, explaining heterogeneous results across studies.

    “Clinical outcomes vary widely because host genetics, baseline microbiota, diet, medications, and comorbidities modulate response and susceptibility, which explains the heterogeneous results across studies [15,114,115].”

    From Current Concepts in Probiotic Safety and Efficacy (2026) · cites this paper as [15]

    The Discussion reports heterogeneous probiotic studies and attributes differences chiefly to study populations, probiotic strains, doses, delivery forms, and intervention duration. It recommends measuring gut microbiota composition, but does not establish that host genetics, baseline microbiota, diet, medications, and comorbidities modulate probiotic response or explain the heterogeneous outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Studies show a wide range of probiotic doses, from 10^8 to 10^11 cells or CFU, and different administration forms may cause further differences.

    “For example, studies show a wide range of doses, ranging from 108 to 1011 cells or CFU, and different forms of administration (cheese, yogurt and milk, or probiotic capsule) may also cause further differences [14,15].”

    From Current Concepts in Probiotic Safety and Efficacy (2026) · cites this paper as [15]

  • In some probiotic studies, the duration of exposure of 3-6 weeks may have been insufficient to detect changes.

    “In some studies, the duration of exposure (3–6 weeks) may have been insufficient to detect changes [14,15].”

    From Current Concepts in Probiotic Safety and Efficacy (2026) · cites this paper as [15]

  • The clinical implications of sex differences in probiotic studies are unclear.

    “The clinical implications of this issue are unclear [15,136].”

    From Current Concepts in Probiotic Safety and Efficacy (2026) · cites this paper as [15]

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. [15]Higgins J.P.T. Altman D.G. Sterne J.A.C. Chapter 8 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 Higgins J.P.T. Green S. The Cochrane Collaboration London, UK 2011 Available online: www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed on 30 September 2019)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tenorio-Jiménez, C., Martínez-Ramírez, M. J., Gil, Á., & Gómez-Llorente, C.
Affiliations
  • Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves (ES)
  • Universidad de Jaén (ES)
  • Universidad de Granada (ES)
  • Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology II, School of Pharmacy, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain
Corresponding author
Tenorio-Jiménez, Carmen
Venue
Nutrients
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2020-01-01
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
124
ISSN
2072-6643 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2997702368
Cited by
206
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 102 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.26
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)
  • RISalud Institutional Health Repository of Andalucía (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Institutional Repository of the University of Granada (University of Granada) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Universidad de Granada
  • Universidad de Jaén
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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Adipokines, Inflammation, and Metabolic Diseases
Keywords
probiotics, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes prevention, body mass index, blood pressure, glucose metabolism, lipid profile, inflammatory markers, soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, interleukin-6, TNF-α, vascular endothelial growth factor, thrombomodulin
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha, Biomarkers, Interleukin-6, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Thrombomodulin, Vascular Cell Adhesion Molecule-1, Probiotics, Metabolic Syndrome, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A, Young Adult

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