Role of probiotic as adjuvant in treating various infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".