Cited by 40Gastrointestinal motility and disordersProbiotics and Fermented FoodsGut microbiota and health

Efficacy and safety of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Jia, Li-Qun, Sun, Jian-Rong, Kong, Chen-Fan, Qu, Xiang-Ke, Deng, Chao, Lou, Yan-Ni·2020·Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIM: Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a common chronic functional bowel disorder and the evidence shows most drug therapies in the treatment of IBS are weak. Recently, some studies showed probiotics may have a positive effect in IBS and they are widely used to improve the symptom of IBS, which indicate probiotics may play an important role in the treatment of IBS. However, the exact effectiveness and safety of probiotics are largely unknown. This systematic review focuses on identifying the efficacy and safety of probiotics in the treatment of IBS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data sources were searched up to February 2019. Databases included MEDLINE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Embase. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing probiotics including complex or individual probiotics with placebo or no therapy were screened, extracted, and appraised by two independent reviewers. The data were pooled using a random-effects model. The methodological quality of all RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias and Jadad scale. Outcomes included symptom-relevant and patient-relevant characteristics, such as symptom relief, abdominal pain, bloating, flatulence, quality of life, and adverse event. RESULTS: This review includes 28 studies with a total of 3606 participants. Particular combinations of probiotics, or specific species and strains, showed probiotics have beneficial effect on overall IBS symptoms (22 studies, n = 3144, RR of improvement in overall IBS symptoms = 1.5, CI 1.23 to 1.83) or overall IBS symptom and abdominal pain scores (18 studies, n = 2766, SMD = -0.31, CI -0.45 to -0.17). In addition, adverse events were not significantly higher with probiotics (8 studies, n = 923, RR = 1.05; 95% CI 0.85-1.31). However, there was no significant benefit on individual IBS symptom scores and quality of life. CONCLUSION: Current evidence shows particular combinations, species or strains of probiotics are effective for overall IBS symptoms. However, it is hard to derive a definite conclusion due to high heterogeneity and unclear risk of bias of some trials. Large well-designed and rigorous trials are warranted.

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 · 10.4103/sjg.sjg_384_19

Cites

59 of 59 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?

  • Gastrointestinal flora disorder, mild mucosal inflammation, chronic immune activation, changes in intestinal permeability, and psychosocial factors are implicated in IBS.

    “Yet, gastrointestinal flora disorder, mild mucosal inflammation, chronic immune activation, changes in intestinal permeability, and psychosocial factors are implicated in IBS [4,15,16,17].”

    From Effectiveness and Safety of Probiotics for Patients with Constipation-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 10 Randomized Controlled Trials (2022) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Introduction links altered gut microbiota and psychological conditions to IBS. It does not address mild mucosal inflammation, chronic immune activation, or changes in intestinal permeability as implicated factors. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

1 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jia, L.-Q., Sun, J.-R., Kong, C.-F., Qu, X.-K., Deng, C., & Lou, Y.-N.
Affiliations
  • Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (CN)
  • China-Japan Friendship Hospital (CN)
Venue
Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2020
Volume
26
Issue
2
Pages
66
ISSN
1319-3767 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2997095744
Cited by
40
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2
FWCI
1.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • Saudi Journal of Gastroenterology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • 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
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
Keywords
probiotics, irritable bowel syndrome, abdominal pain, bloating, flatulence, quality of life, adverse events, probiotic strains, functional bowel disorders
MeSH terms
Humans, Quality of Life, Abdominal Pain, Probiotics, Irritable Bowel Syndrome

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