Cited by 316Gastrointestinal motility and disordersProbiotics and Fermented FoodsGut microbiota and health

The effect of probiotics on functional constipation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Open access
Dimidi, Eirini, Christodoulides, Stephanos, Fragkos, Konstantinos C, Scott, S Mark, Whelan, Kevin·2014·The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

Abstract

Background Functional constipation is a prevalent, burdensome gastrointestinal disorder whose treatment remains challenging. Probiotics have been increasingly investigated in its management.Objective The aim was to investigate the effect of probiotics on gut transit time, stool output, and constipation symptoms in adults with functional constipation via a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).Design Studies were identified by searching 4 electronic databases, back-searching reference lists, contacting authors, and hand-searching abstracts. RCTs that reported administration of probiotics in adults with functional constipation were included. Two reviewers independently performed the screening, data extraction, and bias assessment. Outcome data were synthesized by using weighted mean differences (WMDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with the use of a random-effects model.Results A total of 660 records were identified of which 14 were eligible (1182 patients). Overall, probiotics significantly reduced whole gut transit time by 12.4 h (95% CI: -22.3, -2.5 h) and increased stool frequency by 1.3 bowel movements/wk (95% CI: 0.7, 1.9 bowel movements/wk), and this was significant for Bifidobacterium lactis (WMD: 1.5 bowel movements/wk; 95% CI: 0.7, 2.3 bowel movements/wk) but not for Lactobacillus casei Shirota (WMD: -0.2 bowel movements/wk; 95% CI: -0.8, 0.9 bowel movements/wk). Probiotics improved stool consistency (SMD: +0.55; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.82), and this was significant for B. lactis (SMD: +0.46; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.85) but not for L. casei Shirota (SMD: +0.26; 95% CI: -0.30, 0.82). No serious adverse events were reported. Attrition and reporting bias were high, whereas selection bias was unclear due to inadequate reporting.Conclusions Probiotics may improve whole gut transit time, stool frequency, and stool consistency, with subgroup analysis indicating beneficial effects of B. lactis in particular. However, caution is needed with the interpretation of these data due to their high heterogeneity and risk of bias. Adequately powered RCTs are required to better determine the species or strains, doses, and duration of use of probiotics that are most efficacious.

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 · 10.3945/ajcn.114.089151

Cites

62 of 62 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?

  • Maltodextrin has been successfully used as a placebo in numerous trials in constipation, with a meta-analysis showing no change on whole gut transit time.

    “maltodextrin has been successfully used 9 as a placebo in numerous trials in constipation, with a meta-analysis showing no change on WGTT 8 .”

    From Randomised clinical trial: <i>Bifidobacterium lactis</i> NCC2818 probiotic vs placebo, and impact on gut transit time, symptoms, and gut microbiology in chronic constipation (2019) · cites this paper as [8]

    The citation to this paper is attached to the claim that the meta-analysis showed no change in whole gut transit time. The GTT section instead reports that probiotics significantly reduced whole gut transit time by 12.4 hours overall. The separate claim about maltodextrin carries a different citation and is not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Two systematic reviews and meta-analyses showed that probiotic consumption significantly decreased whole gut transit time, with B. lactis strains HN019 and DN-173010 conferring the largest treatment effects, particularly in constipated individuals compared to healthy people.

    “Similarly, two systematic reviews and meta-analyses - that investigated the effect of various probiotics on WGTT in healthy and constipated individuals - showed that probiotic consumption significantly decreased WGTT, with B. lactis strains HN019 and DN-173010 conferring the largest treatment effects, particularly in constipated individuals compared to healthy people 8 26 .”

    From Randomised clinical trial: <i>Bifidobacterium lactis</i> NCC2818 probiotic vs placebo, and impact on gut transit time, symptoms, and gut microbiology in chronic constipation (2019) · cites this paper as [8]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Other B. lactis strains significantly increased stool frequency by an average of 1.5 bowel movements per week, and improved stool consistency and other constipation-related symptoms.

    “which showed that other B. 18 lactis strains significantly increased stool frequency by an average of 1.5 bowel movements per week, and 19 improved stool consistency and other constipation-related symptoms 8 .”

    From Randomised clinical trial: <i>Bifidobacterium lactis</i> NCC2818 probiotic vs placebo, and impact on gut transit time, symptoms, and gut microbiology in chronic constipation (2019) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Stool output section reports that B. lactis increased stool frequency by 1.5 bowel movements per week and significantly improved stool consistency. The Discussion also reports reduced flatulence, but the Constipation-related symptoms section found no significant B. lactis effect on incomplete evacuation or ease of stool expulsion. Thus, the claim overgeneralizes the improvement in other symptoms; the paper also cautions that the findings were heterogeneous. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The current study's results differ from the findings of the meta-analysis on other B. lactis strains.

    “while differing with the findings of the aforementioned meta-analysis,”
  • Bifidobacterium lactis reduced whole gut transit time and increased stool frequency in constipated patients in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

    “a recent meta analysis of randomized controlled trials have revealed that Bifidobacterium lactis, but not for Lactobacillus casei Shirota, reduced whole gut transit time and increased stool frequency in constipated patients”

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

1 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. He M, Hu G, Yang Y. Effect of probiotic yogurt containing Bifido- bacterium animalis strain DN-173 010 on symptoms of constipation. Chin J Gastroenterol 2009;14:287-9.
  2. Takii H, Nishijima T, Takami K, Tanaka Y, Inugami M, Mawatari T, Sugimura H, Aoki R. Effects of fermented milk containing Bifido- bacterium animalis subsp. lactis GCL2505 on improvement of defe- cation, fecal properties, and intestinal microflora. Jpn Pharmacol Ther 2012;40:657-65.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dimidi, E., Christodoulides, S., Fragkos, K. C., Scott, S. M., & Whelan, K.
Affiliations
Queen Mary University of London (GB)
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
100
Issue
4
Pages
1075-1084
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2012951812
Cited by
316
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 1
FWCI
3.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Nestec
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • 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
Keywords
probiotics, functional constipation, gut transit time, stool frequency, stool consistency, Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis, Lactobacillus casei Shirota, adults, constipation treatment, adverse events, reporting bias, attrition bias, selection bias, subgroup analysis, quality of evidence, gut microbiota, dietary fat, dietary fiber intake
MeSH terms
Constipation, Defecation, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, 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