0
selected
-
1.
Efficacy of prebiotics and probiotics for functional dyspepsia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Zhang, J, Wu, HM, Wang, X, Xie, J, Li, X, Ma, J, Wang, F, Tang, X
Medicine. 2020;(7):e19107
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder. Evidence suggests that disturbance of the gastrointestinal microbiota may be implicated in FD. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of prebiotics and probiotics for FD. METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (through September 2018). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited adults with FD and that compared prebiotics, probiotics, or synbiotics with placebo or no therapy were eligible. Eligibility assessment and data extraction were performed by two independent researchers. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of remaining symptomatic after therapy. Continuous data were pooled using a standardized or weighted mean difference with a 95% CI. RESULTS The search strategy identified 1062 citations. Five RCTs were eligible for inclusion. The RR of FD symptoms improving with probiotics or probiotics vs placebo was 1.15 (95% CI 1.01-1.30). Probiotics and prebiotics had beneficial effects on symptom scores of FD. Data for synbiotics in the context of FD were sparse, and no definite conclusions could be drawn. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This study belongs to the category of systematic reviews, not clinical trials. Therefore, it does not require ethical approval. The results of this study will be published in influential international academic journals related to this topic. CONCLUSION Probiotics and prebiotics seemed to be effective treatments for FD, although the individual species and strains that are the most beneficial remain unclear. Using only probiotics failed to improve the symptoms of FD. Further evidence is required before the role of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics in FD can be fully understood.
-
2.
Probiotics, prebiotics, antibiotic, Chinese herbal medicine, and fecal microbiota transplantation in irritable bowel syndrome: Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
He, Y, Xu, R, Wang, W, Zhang, J, Hu, X
Medicine. 2020;(32):e21502
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal disease, with a high global incidence, which seriously influences the quality of life and work efficiency of patients. Extensive research showed that IBS is related to changes in the intestinal microenvironment. The novel treatment strategy targeting the gut microbiota is being actively implemented. Probiotics, antibiotics, prebiotics, fecal microbiota transplantation, and Chinese Herbal Medicine have been proven to be effective in the treatment of IBS, and all have an impact on the intestinal flora of patients. However, these 5 treatments have their own pros and cons and have not been systematically evaluated and compared. Therefore, this study will indirectly compare the safety and effectiveness of these 5 methods in the treatment of IBS through network meta-analysis. METHODS The following databases including Embase, Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov will be retrieved from inception to June 2020 without language restrictions. Literature selection, data extraction, and bias analysis will be done by 2 researchers. The primary outcome is global symptoms improvement. The secondary outcomes will include individual IBS symptom scores, emotional response, and adverse events. The conventional pair-wise meta-analysis will be performed using Stata V.14.0 and be pooled using a random-effects model. We will use WinBUGS V.1.4.3 (Cambridge, United Kingdom) with a Bayesian hierarchical random-effects model to conduct the network meta-analysis. RESULTS This study will provide systematic reviews and indirect network comparison results about treatments of IBS. CONCLUSIONS This study will systematically evaluate and compare 5 intestinal flora-related therapies for IBS and to provide an evidence-based medical decision-making basis for clinicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER INPLASY202050047.
-
3.
Role of Gut Microbiota in the Development and Treatment of Colorectal Cancer.
Lin, C, Cai, X, Zhang, J, Wang, W, Sheng, Q, Hua, H, Zhou, X
Digestion. 2019;(1):72-78
Abstract
Human guts harbor abundant microbes that regulate many aspects of host physiology. However, bacterial imbalance or dysbiosis in the gut due to the dietary or environmental changes may cause colorectal cancer (CRC). Increasing studies show that gut microbiota plays an important role in the occurrence and development of CRC, as a result of virulence factors, bacterial metabolites, or inflammatory pathways. In the future, probiotics or targeting the microbiota will probably be a powerful weapon in the battle against CRC. This review seeks to outline the relationship between gut microbiota and the development of CRC as well as the potential mechanisms of microbiota involved in treatment of CRC, so as to provide some references for research on the development, prevention, and treatment of this disease.
-
4.
Probiotics for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials.
Wang, J, Liu, KX, Ariani, F, Tao, LL, Zhang, J, Qu, JM
PloS one. 2013;(12):e83934
Abstract
BACKGROUND Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is considered to be a worldwide issue along with the development of supportive ventilation. The preventing strategy is of great importance for its poor prognostic and difficulties in treatment. Probiotics have been advocated as one of the possible preventive measures. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the potential benefits of probiotics. METHODS The databases, Web of science, PubMed, Ovid and Cochrane lib were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) publications that compared the effectiveness of probiotics with placebo in the prevention of VAP. The incidence of VAP was considered as the primary endpoint, mortality, length of stay in intensive care units (ICUs), etiology of the infections were considered as secondary endpoints. RESULTS A total of 844 patients from 5 trials were subjected to meta-analysis. Probiotics did not significantly decrease the incidence of VAP (RR 0.94, 95%CI 0.85-1.04, p=0.22), however, the administration of probiotics reduced the risk of VAP caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) (RR 0.30, 95%CI 0.11-0.91, P=0.03). It failed to affect any other endpoints. CONCLUSION Probiotic prophylaxis of ventilator-associated pneumonia remained inconclusive and it failed to improve the prognosis of general mechanically ventilated patients. It was noteworthy that infections caused by P. aeruginosa was reduced by administration of probiotics. In further, it is recommended that advanced studies should exploit transformation in pathogenic microorganisms owing to administration of probiotics as well as the specific population.
-
5.
Probiotics' effects on the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Liu, KX, Zhu, YG, Zhang, J, Tao, LL, Lee, JW, Wang, XD, Qu, JM
Critical care (London, England). 2012;(3):R109
Abstract
INTRODUCTION To evaluate the efficacy of probiotics in preventing nosocomial pneumonia in critically ill patients. METHODS We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Web of Science for relevant studies. Two reviewers extracted data and reviewed the quality of the studies independently. The primary outcome was the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia. Study-level data were pooled using a random-effects model when I(2) was > 50% or a fixed-effects model when I(2) was < 50%. RESULTS Twelve randomized controlled studies with a total of 1,546 patients were considered. Pooled analysis showed a statistically significant reduction in nosocomial pneumonia rates due to probiotics (odd ratio [OR]= 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.97, P = 0.03, I(2) = 46%). However, no statistically significant difference was found between groups regarding in-hospital mortality (OR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.74, P = 0.82, I(2) = 51%), intensive care unit mortality (OR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.29, P = 0.43, I(2) = 0%), duration of stay in the hospital (mean difference [MD] in days = -0.13, 95% CI -0.93 to 0.67, P = 0.75, I(2) = 46%), or duration of stay in the intensive care units (MD = -0.72, 95% CI -1.73 to 0.29, P = 0.16, I(2) = 68%). CONCLUSIONS The use of probiotics was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia in critically ill patients. However, large, well-designed, randomized, multi-center trials are needed to confirm any effects of probiotics clinical endpoints such as mortality and length of ICU and hospital stay.