MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2552131032 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20160087

Lactobacillus probiotics in the prevention of diarrhea associated with Clostridium difficile: a systematic review and Bayesian hierarchical meta-analysis

2016· review· en· W2552131032 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Alison Sinclair, Xuanqian Xie, Lea Saab, Nandini Dendukuri

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisDiarrheaMedicineCredible intervalInternal medicineConfidence intervalClostridium difficileMeta-regressionRandomized controlled trialRelative riskBiologyMicrobiologyAntibiotics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background:</h3> Recent meta-analyses of the efficacy of probiotics for preventing diarrhea associated with <i>Clostridium difficile</i> have concluded there is a large effect favouring probiotics. We reexamined this evidence, which contradicts the results of a more recent large randomized controlled trial that found no benefit of <i>Lactobacillus</i> probiotics for preventing <i>C. difficile</i>-associated diarrhea. <h3>Methods:</h3> We performed a systematic review of the efficacy of treatment with <i>Lactobacillus</i> probiotics for preventing nosocomial <i>C. difficile</i>-associated diarrhea in adults and carried out a meta-analysis using a Bayesian hierarchical model. We used credibility analysis and meta-regression to characterize the heterogeneity between studies. <h3>Results:</h3> Ten studies met our inclusion criteria. The pooled risk ratio was highly statistically significant, at 0.25 (95% credible interval 0.08-0.47). However, the 95% prediction interval for the risk ratio in a future study, 0.02-1.34, was wider than the credible interval, owing to heterogeneity between studies. Furthermore, a credibility analysis showed that the strength of the evidence was weaker than the observed number of cases of <i>C. difficile</i>-associated diarrhea across studies would suggest. Meta-regression suggested that the beneficial effect of probiotics was more likely to be reported in studies with an increased risk of <i>C. difficile</i>-associated diarrhea in the control group, although this association was not statistically significant. <h3>Interpretation:</h3> Accounting for between-study heterogeneity showed that there is considerable uncertainty regarding the apparently large efficacy estimate associated with <i>Lactobacillus</i> probiotic treatment in preventing <i>C. difficile</i>-associated diarrhea. Most studies to date have been carried out in populations with a low risk of <i>C. difficile</i>-associated diarrhea, such that the evidence is inconclusive and inadequate to support a policy concerning routine use of probiotics in to prevent this condition.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207