1.
Probiotics for the management of irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and three-level meta-analysis.
Chen, M, Yuan, L, Xie, CR, Wang, XY, Feng, SJ, Xiao, XY, Zheng, H
International journal of surgery (London, England). 2023;109(11):3631-3647
-
-
-
Free full text
-
Plain language summary
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a disorder of the brain–gut axis characterised by frequent abdominal pain, bloating, flatulence, and change of bowel habits – constipation or diarrhoea. This study's aim was to assess the overall effect of probiotics on improving IBS symptoms and find out the important effect moderators. This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of seventy-two articles with 8581 participants. Results showed general medium effect size of probiotics on the improvement of IBS symptoms compared with placebo, and a large effect size of probiotics on the abdominal pain and the scores of quality-of-life assessments. Furthermore, the treatment duration and study duration were the most important moderators of effect, and a longer study duration or treatment duration was associated with a smaller effect size. Authors concluded that their study suggested a short-term effect of probiotics on the improvement of global IBS symptoms and abdominal pain. Furthermore, treatment duration, study regions, the types of outcomes, and the types of probiotics might be major effect moderators.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Previous systematic reviews demonstrated a potentially beneficial effect of probiotics on irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). However, these studies are either affected by the inclusion of insufficient trials or by the problem of dependent data across multiple outcomes, and an overall effect size has not been provided. We aimed to determine the effect of probiotics on IBS through a three-level meta-analysis and clarify potential effect moderators. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science, screening for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examine the effect of probiotics on IBS. The primary outcome was the improvement in the severity of global IBS symptoms at the end of treatment. The secondary outcomes were the improvement in abdominal pain and the quality of life. The effect sizes of the probiotics were measured by using the standardized mean difference (SMD) and pooled by a three-level meta-analysis model. RESULTS We included 72 RCTs in the analysis. The meta-analysis showed significantly better overall effect of probiotics than placebo on the global IBS symptoms (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.34, P <0.001), abdominal pain (SMD -0.89, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.5, P <0.001) and quality of life (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.54, P <0.001), respectively. Moderator analysis found that a treatment duration shorter than 4 weeks was associated with a larger effect size in all the outcomes, and Bacillus probiotics had better improvement on the abdominal pain. CONCLUSIONS Probiotics had a short-term effect and a medium effect size on the global IBS symptoms. Treatment duration and types of probiotics affected the effect size of probiotics, and shorter durations and Bacillus probiotics were associated with better treatment effects. REGISTRATION Open Science Framework.
2.
Clinical applications of detecting IgG, IgM or IgA antibody for the diagnosis of COVID-19: A meta-analysis and systematic review.
Chen, M, Qin, R, Jiang, M, Yang, Z, Wen, W, Li, J
International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases. 2021;104:415-422
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
The rapidly spreading nature of COVID-19 has put an emphasis on the importance of fast diagnosis. Gold standard diagnosis is through reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) tests, which aims to detect the presence of COVID-19. However, challenges with collection techniques and when in the disease lifecycle these tests are taken, can affect their reliability, highlighting a need for alternative methods of testing. Other testing methods exist, which involve testing the body’s own immune response to the presence of COVID-19, however these may also have their limitations. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of testing the body’s own immune reaction for the presence of COVID-19. The results showed that testing the body’s immune reaction was effective, however if the person being tested is at an early stage in the disease, then it may be misdiagnosed. This study could be used by healthcare professionals to understand that the use of any type of COVID-19 testing may have its limitations, and although a person may test negative, there is still a possibility that they have the infection if symptoms exist
Abstract
BACKGROUND The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a devastating impact worldwide, and timely detection and quarantine of infected patients are critical to prevent spread of disease. Serological antibody testing is an important diagnostic method used increasingly in clinics, although its clinical application is still under investigation. METHODS A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the diagnostic performance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 antibody tests in patients with COVID-19. The test results analysed included: (1) IgM-positive but IgG-negative (IgM+IgG-); (2) IgG-positive but IgM-negative (IgG+IgM-); (3) both IgM-positive and IgG-positive (IgM+IgG+); (4) IgM-positive without IgG information (IgM+IgG+/-); (5) IgG-positive without IgM information (IgG+IgM+/-); (6) either IgM-positive or IgG-positive (IgM+ or IgG+); and (7) IgA-positive (IgA+). RESULTS Sixty-eight studies were included. Pooled sensitivities for IgM+IgG-, IgG+IgM-, IgM+IgG+, IgM+IgG+/-, IgG+IgM+/-, and IgM+ or IgG+ were 6%, 7%, 53%, 68%, 73% and 79% respectively. Pooled specificities ranged from 98% to 100%. IgA+ had a pooled sensitivity of 78% but a relatively low specificity of 88%. Tests conducted 2 weeks after symptom onset showed better diagnostic accuracy than tests conducted earlier. Chemiluminescence immunoassay and detection of S protein as the antigen could offer more accurate diagnostic results. DISCUSSION These findings support the supplemental role of serological antibody tests in the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, their capacity to diagnose COVID-19 early in the disease course could be limited.