MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417427231 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-101593

Efficacy and safety of microbiota-targeted therapeutics in autoimmune and inflammatory rheumatic diseases: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2025· article· en· W4417427231 on OpenAlexaff
Maja Skov Kragsnæs, Benoît Gilbert, Bjørk Khaliqi Sofíudóttir, Christopher Rooney, Sebrina Maj-Britt Hansen, Daniele Mauro, Benjamin H. Mullish, Anne‐Sophie Bergot, Kulveer Mankia, Niti Goel, Gunnstein Bakland, Peter Holger Johnsen, Jesús Miguéns Blanco, Simone S. Li, Émilie Dumas, Philip Rask Lage-Hansen, Carlijn A. Wagenaar, Ghaith Bakdash, Mat Robinson, Karsten Kristiansen, Julian R. Marchesi, Georg Schett, Mario M. Zaiss, Mine Orlu, Dirkjan van Schaadenburg, José U. Scher, Dennis McGonagle, Dirk Elewaut, Maxime Bréban, Peter Tugwell, Axel Finckh, Francesco Ciccia, Martin Kriegel, C. Daïen, Torkell Ellingsen, Robin Christensen

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
Canadian institutionsBruyère
FundersMedical Research CouncilNIHR Imperial Biomedical Research CentreSyddansk UniversitetOdense UniversitetshospitalImperial College LondonUK Research and InnovationParker Institute for Cancer ImmunotherapyImperial College Healthcare NHS TrustNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchLupus Research AllianceOak Foundation
KeywordsProtocol (science)Randomized controlled trialAlternative medicineClinical trialRheumatologyMEDLINESystematic review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: An abnormal composition of gut bacteria along with alterations in microbial metabolites and reduced gut barrier integrity has been associated with the pathogenesis of chronic autoimmune and inflammatory rheumatic diseases (AIRDs). The aim of the systematic review, for which this protocol is presented, is to evaluate the clinical benefits and potential harms of therapies targeting the intestinal microbiota and/or gut barrier function in AIRDs to inform clinical practice and future research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol used the reporting guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocol. We will search Embase (Ovid), Medline (Ovid) and the Cochrane Library (Central) for reports of randomised controlled trials of patients diagnosed with an AIRD. Eligible interventions are therapies targeting the intestinal microbiota and/or gut barrier function including probiotics, synbiotics, faecal microbiota transplantation, live biotherapeutic products and antibiotics with the intent to modify disease activity in AIRDs. The primary outcome of the evidence synthesis will be based on the primary endpoint of each trial. Secondary efficacy outcomes will be evaluated and selected from the existing core domain sets of the individual diseases and include the following domains: disease control, patient global assessment, physician global assessment, health-related quality of life, fatigue, pain and inflammation. Harms will include the total number of withdrawals, withdrawals due to adverse events, number of patients with serious adverse events, disease flares and deaths. A meta-analysis will be performed for each outcome domain separately. Depending on the type of outcome, the quantitative synthesis will encompass both ORs and standardised mean differences with corresponding 95% CIs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval will be needed for this systematic review. We will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to disseminate the study results through a peer-reviewed publication. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42025644244.

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)0.091
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.154
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0910.154
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0300.037
Bibliometrics0.0110.013
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0090.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.007

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicRheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies→French-language works237,207→