IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0034938.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Meta-Analysis of Probiotic Efficacy for Gastrointestinal Diseases

Author

Listed:
  • Marina L Ritchie
  • Tamara N Romanuk

Abstract

Background: Meta-analyses on the effects of probiotics on specific gastrointestinal diseases have generally shown positive effects on disease prevention and treatment; however, the relative efficacy of probiotic use for treatment and prevention across different gastrointestinal diseases, with differing etiology and mechanisms of action, has not been addressed. Methods/Principal Findings: We included randomized controlled trials in humans that used a specified probiotic in the treatment or prevention of Pouchitis, Infectious diarrhea, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Helicobacter pylori, Clostridium difficile Disease, Antibiotic Associated Diarrhea, Traveler's Diarrhea, or Necrotizing Enterocolitis. Random effects models were used to evaluate efficacy as pooled relative risks across the eight diseases as well as across probiotic species, single vs. multiple species, patient ages, dosages, and length of treatment. Probiotics had a positive significant effect across all eight gastrointestinal diseases with a relative risk of 0.58 (95% (CI) 0.51–0.65). Six of the eight diseases: Pouchitis, Infectious diarrhea, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Helicobacter pylori, Clostridium difficile Disease, and Antibiotic Associated Diarrhea, showed positive significant effects. Traveler's Diarrhea and Necrotizing Enterocolitis did not show significant effects of probiotcs. Of the 11 species and species mixtures, all showed positive significant effects except for Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus plantarum, and Bifidobacterium infantis. Across all diseases and probiotic species, positive significant effects of probiotics were observed for all age groups, single vs. multiple species, and treatment lengths. Conclusions/Significance: Probiotics are generally beneficial in treatment and prevention of gastrointestinal diseases. Efficacy was not observed for Traveler's Diarrhea or Necrotizing Enterocolitis or for the probiotic species L. acidophilus, L. plantarum, and B. infantis. When choosing to use probiotics in the treatment or prevention of gastrointestinal disease, the type of disease and probiotic species (strain) are the most important factors to take into consideration.

Suggested Citation

  • Marina L Ritchie & Tamara N Romanuk, 2012. "A Meta-Analysis of Probiotic Efficacy for Gastrointestinal Diseases," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(4), pages 1-11, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0034938
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0034938
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0034938
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0034938&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0034938?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Meng-Meng Liu & Shu-Ting Li & Yan Shu & He-Qin Zhan, 2017. "Probiotics for prevention of radiation-induced diarrhea: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Sabina Fijan & Anita Frauwallner & László Varga & Tomaž Langerholc & Irena Rogelj & Mateja Lorber & Peter Lewis & Petra Povalej Bržan, 2019. "Health Professionals’ Knowledge of Probiotics: An International Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-16, August.
    3. Irene Lenoir-Wijnkoop & Laetitia Gerlier & Denis Roy & Gregor Reid, 2016. "The Clinical and Economic Impact of Probiotics Consumption on Respiratory Tract Infections: Projections for Canada," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0034938. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.