Probiotic Supplementation for Promotion of Growth in Undernourished Children: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Probiotic supplementation has been proposed as a therapeutic intervention to improve growth outcomes in children with undernutrition. The objective of this review is to synthesize the current evidence on probiotic supplementation for promotion of growth in undernourished children. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS, and Scopus for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that administered probiotics or eligible comparators to undernourished children below 5 years of age. Our primary outcomes of interest were weight-for-age, height-for-age, and weight-for-height at the longest follow-up points reported. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to calculate standardized mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria were used to assess certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: Nine RCTs with 5295 children in total were included. Durations of treatment ranged from 1 month to 1 year. Pooled analyses from 7 studies showed that probiotics may have little to no effect on weight-for-age (SMD 0.05 standard deviation [SD], 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.13, n = 2115 children; low-certainty evidence) and height-for-age (SMD -0.04 SD, 95% CI: -0.14 to 0.07, n = 1357 children; low-certainty evidence). The evidence was very uncertain about the effect on weight-for-height. CONCLUSIONS: Probiotics may have little to no effect on anthropometry in undernourished children, though there is considerable heterogeneity among the trials reviewed thus far. The interaction between gut microbiota and human nutrition is complex, and further research is needed to determine how the gut microbiome may contribute to undernutrition and how probiotics may affect growth in this vulnerable population.
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 | 0.011 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".