Role of probiotic as adjuvant in treating various infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Research on the advantages of probiotics has attracted increasing interest based on the number of publications, products, and public awareness of their benefits. This review evaluated the role of probiotics (single and multiple regimens) as an additional regimen to treat common infectious diseases, including Helicobacter. pylori, diarrheal infections, urinary tract infections (UTIs), upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), and HIV infections. METHODS: We searched randomized controlled trials from PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane and identified 6,950 studies. Duplicates were removed, and titles and abstracts were filtered. Bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (ROB 1.0 and 2.0). The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Data were extracted and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan. RESULTS: A total of 32 studies were included in this study (22 H. pylori studies, 2 diarrheal infection studies, 6 UTI studies, and 2 HIV infection studies). There was no study on URTI. Probiotics, in addition to primary treatment, could improve the eradication of H. pylori versus the control (RR: 1.09; 95% CI:1.04 - 1.13, p value = 0.001) and achieve a cure range of Nugent score in UTI patients (RR 1.38; 95% CI: 1.01 - 1.89, p value = 0.04). For eradicating H. pylori infection, subgroup analysis based on the therapy regimen showed that standard triple therapy was slightly superior compared to quadruple therapy in eradicating H. pylori (RR: 1.14 vs. 1.01, respectively). Single strain probiotics showed a similar effect to multiple strain probiotic regimens (both had an RR of 1.09). The effect estimates of the use of single strain probiotics as adjuvant therapy in eradicating H. pylori and the use of probiotics in UTI had a high certainty of evidence. Meta-analysis was not performed for infectious diarrheal because there were only two eligible studies with different probiotic supplementations and outcome parameters. Nonetheless, they showed that the diarrheal incidence was lower and complete remission of diarrheal was higher after the regimen of probiotics. Similarly, a meta-analysis was not performed for HIV infection because the two eligible studies used different designs and comparators with contradicting findings. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed beneficial use of single strain probiotics as adjuvant therapy in eradicating H. pylori and the use of probiotics in UTI. Probiotic supplementation might not be beneficial for patients given a quadruple therapy. Single-strain and multi-strain probiotic regimens had similar effects in increasing the eradication rate of H. pylori. Our study also suggested that the benefits of probiotics as an additional regimen in infectious diarrheal and HIV infections remain unclear; more studies are needed to confirm the benefits.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,012 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».