Supplementation With Bifidobacterium and Symptomatic Control in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: An Evidence-Based Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder, with a global prevalence of around 11%. Family doctors should be aware of the diagnosis and treatment of this pathology. The benefit of using probiotics is questionable. The purpose of this review is to establish the evidence of the association between Bifidobacterium supplementation and symptomatic control in patients with IBS. The research was conducted using the National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Electronic Library for Health of the British NHS, Canadian Medical Association Practice Guidelines InfoBase, Cochrane Library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Bandolier, Evidence-Based Medicine Online, and PubMed. Articles published between March 2017 and March 2022 in humans and written in Portuguese, Spanish, and English using the terms IBS and Bifidobacterium were included. To stratify the level of evidence (LOE), the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT), from the American Academy of Family Physicians, was used. Thirty-seven articles were found corresponding to the search terms, and a total of seven articles were selected. Three clinical trials and a simple review have demonstrated improvement in symptoms, although further studies are needed. The guideline and the systematic review did not demonstrate superiority in symptomatic relief when compared to other species of probiotics. The meta-analysis did not show the efficacy of the isolated use of Bifidobacterium. The evidence of an association between supplementation with Bifidobacterium and symptomatic control in patients with IBS is not clear. Some studies seem to demonstrate benefits in improving symptoms (SORT C).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".