MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401624973 · doi:10.1163/18762891-bja00034

Effect of biotic supplementation on infant sleep and settling behaviours: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2017· review· en· W4401624973 on OpenAlexaff
Mahtab Matin, Meredith Brockway, A. Badejo, A. Kouroupis, Robert Janke, Elizabeth Keys

Bibliographic record

VenueBeneficial Microbes · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicInfant Nutrition and Health
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers UniversityUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of CalgaryOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynbioticsMeta-analysisPrebioticMedicineProbioticPlaceboRandomized controlled trialSleep (system call)PediatricsInternal medicineBiologyFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microbiota changes throughout infancy and can be modified by biotic supplementation, which includes probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, and post-biotics. Given the potential influence of the microbiome on infant sleep, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effect of biotic supplementation on sleep behaviours in full-term infants aged 0-12 months. In June 2023, we searched seven databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of biotic supplementation intervention studies using synonymous terms for 'infant' AND 'biotic' AND 'sleep' (PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42022358822). Title/abstracts and the full texts were independently screened. Data on infant sleep and settling behaviour outcomes, reported adverse/side effects, and co-morbid conditions were extracted for analysis. Using the modified Cochrane Collaboration tool, two independent reviewers judged the risk of bias. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan5. Our search yielded 453 unique studies and 23 RCTs are included in this review. Probiotic supplementation was the most common biotic supplementation (provided in 53% of studies), while 28% and 19% offered prebiotic and synbiotic supplementation, respectively. Sleep duration was the most common (95%) reported outcome for probiotics. No significant differences were reported in sleep duration during the 1st to 4th week of probiotic supplementation. However, in the 5th week of probiotic supplementation, infants who received placebo slept significantly longer (MD = -35.17 min, 95% CI [-69.72, -0.62]), suggesting a borderline significance that is clinically relevant. There were limited studies and timeframe alignment to analyse prebiotics, synbiotics, post-biotics, and para-probiotics effects on infant sleep duration. The study suggests probiotic supplementation does not increase infant sleep duration within the first 4 postpartum weeks and may contribute to reduced sleep duration in the fifth week. Limited studies were available to assess the effects of biotic supplementation over the first 12 postpartum months. Future research should assess the full range of sleep behaviours, infant feeding type, and microbiome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.037
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBeneficial MicrobesSame topicInfant Nutrition and HealthFrench-language works237,207