Dataset Information

Effect of Probiotics on Glycemic Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Previous clinical trials indicate that probiotic consumption may improve blood glucose control, however, results from randomized trials on glycemic control have been inconsistent.

Objective

To investigate the effects of probiotics on glycemic control in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Data sources

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrial.gov through October 2014.

Data extraction and synthesis

Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed study quality and risk of bias. Data were pooled using a random-effects model and expressed as mean differences (MD) with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q-statistic) and quantified (I2).

Results

Seventeen randomized controlled trials were included, in which 17 fasting blood glucose (n = 1105), 11 fasting plasma insulin (n = 788), 8 homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (n = 635) comparisons were reported. Probiotic consumption, compared with placebo, significantly reduced fasting glucose (MD = -0.31 mmol/L; 95% CI 0.56, 0.06; p = 0.02), fasting plasma insulin (MD = -1.29 ?U/mL; 95% CI -2.17, -0.41; p = 0.004), and HOMA-IR (MD = 0.48; 95% CI -0.83, -0.13; p = 0.007).

Conclusions

Probiotic consumption may improve glycemic control modestly. Modification of gut microbiota by probiotic supplementation may be a method for preventing and control hyperglycemia in clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Ruan Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4498615 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of Probiotics on Glycemic Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials.

Ruan Yuting Y Sun Jia J He Jie J Chen Fangyao F Chen Rongping R Chen Hong H

PloS one 20150710 7

<h4>Background</h4>Previous clinical trials indicate that probiotic consumption may improve blood glucose control, however, results from randomized trials on glycemic control have been inconsistent.<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate the effects of probiotics on glycemic control in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.<h4>Data sources</h4>PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrial.gov through October 2014.<h4>Data extraction and synthesis</h4>Two independen ...[more]

PMID: 26161741

Similar Datasets

Project description:Abstract Objectives Current approved health claims in Canada, US and Europe recognize the ability of oat ß-glucan to lower blood cholesterol; however, its ability to improve glycemic control is less certain. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to update the evidence of the effect of oats and oat-fiber on markers of glycemic control in people with and without diabetes. Here we present data for the subgroup with diabetes. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through September 23rd, 2020. We included randomized controlled trials of ≥ 2-weeks of sources of oat ß-glucan and measures of glycemic control in diabetes. Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed the risk of bias (Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool). The outcomes were fasting plasma glucose (FPG), 2h-plasma glucose (2h-PG) from a 75 g-oral glucose tolerance test, HbA1c and fasting plasma insulin (FPI). Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method. Heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q statistic) and quantified (I2 statistic). Pooled estimates were expressed as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CI). GRADE assessed the certainty of the evidence. Results Eligibility criteria were met by 5 trial comparisons (N = 359) in type 2 diabetes. No trials were identified in type 1 diabetes. Consumption of oat ß-glucan sources reduced FPG (MD = −0.37 mmol/L [95% CI: −0.70, −0.05 mmol/L], P = 0.03, I2 = 0.00%, PQ = 0.76) and 2h-PG (MD = −1.24 mmol/L [95% CI: −1.97, −0.51 mmol/L], P = 0.00, I2 = 0.00%, PQ = 0.56). There were non-significant reductions in HbA1c (MD = −0.12%, [95% CI: −0.26, 0.01%], P = 0.07, I2 = 0.00%, PQ = 1.00) and FPI (MD = −4.59 pmol/L, [95% CI: −14.71, 5.52 pmol/L], P = 0.37, I2 = 40.84%, PQ = 0.19). The certainty of evidence was high for 2h-PG and moderate for FPG, HbA1c and FPI (single downgrades for imprecision in each case). Conclusions Current evidence provides a good indication that consumption of oat ß-glucan results in small improvements of glycemic control in type 2 diabetes. More high quality randomized trials are required to improve the precision of the pooled estimates. (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04631913) Funding Sources Quaker Oats Center of Excellence, Diabetes Canada, Banting & Best Diabetes Centre, Toronto 3D foundation

Project description:ImportanceDespite the widespread use of ginseng in the management of diabetes, supporting evidence of its anti-hyperglycemic efficacy is limited, necessitating the need for evidence-based recommendations for the potential inclusion of ginseng in diabetes management.ObjectiveTo elucidate the effect of ginseng on glycemic control in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in people with and without diabetes.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library (through July 3, 2013).Study selectionRandomized controlled trials ≥30 days assessing the glycemic effects of ginseng in people with and without diabetes.Data extractionRelevant data were extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The Heyland Methodological Quality Score and the Cochrane risk of bias tool were used to assess study quality and risk of bias respectively.Data synthesisSixteen trials were included, in which 16 fasting blood glucose (n = 770), 10 fasting plasma insulin (n = 349), 9 glycated hemoglobin (n = 264), and 7 homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (n = 305) comparisons were reported. Ginseng significantly reduced fasting blood glucose compared to control (MD = -0.31 mmol/L [95% CI: -0.59 to -0.03], P = 0.03). Although there was no significant effect on fasting plasma insulin, glycated hemoglobin, or homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, a priori subgroup analyses did show significant reductions in glycated hemoglobin in parallel compared to crossover trials (MD = 0.22% [95%CI: 0.06 to 0.37], P = 0.01).LimitationsMost trials were of short duration (67% trials<12wks), and included participants with a relatively good glycemic control (median HbA1c non-diabetes = 5.4% [2 trials]; median HbA1c diabetes = 7.1% [7 trials]).ConclusionsGinseng modestly yet significantly improved fasting blood glucose in people with and without diabetes. In order to address the uncertainty in our effect estimates and provide better assessments of ginseng's anti-diabetic efficacy, larger and longer randomized controlled trials using standardized ginseng preparations are warranted.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01841229.

Project description:Evidence regarding the effect of isomaltulose on glycemic and insulinemic responses is still conflicting, which limits isomaltulose's application in glycemic management. The purpose of this study was to comprehensively evaluate its effectiveness and evidence quality. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) prior to October 2021. RCTs were eligible for inclusion if they enrolled adults to oral intake of isomaltulose or other carbohydrates dissolved in water after an overnight fast and compared their 2-h postprandial glucose and insulin concentrations. The DerSimonian-Laird method was used to pool the means of the circulating glucose and insulin concentrations. Both random-effects and fixed-effects models were used to calculate the weighted mean difference in postprandial glucose and insulin concentrations in different groups. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were also conducted. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Finally, 11 RCTs (n = 175 participants) were included. The trials were conducted in 4 countries (Japan, Brazil, Germany, and the Netherlands), and all of the enrolled participants were >18 y of age with various health statuses (healthy, type 2 diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, and hypertension). Moderate evidence suggested that oral isomaltulose caused an attenuated glycemic response compared with sucrose at 30 min. Low evidence suggested that oral isomaltulose caused an attenuated but more prolonged glycemic response than sucrose and an attenuated insulinemic response. Low-to-moderate levels of evidence suggest there may be more benefit of isomaltulose for people with type 2 diabetes, impaired glucose tolerance, or hypertension; older people; overweight or obese people; and Asian people. The study was registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) as CRD42021290396 (available at https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).

Project description:IntroductionGut dysbiosis may play a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of cirrhosis and the severity of complications. Numerous studies have investigated the probiotics as treatments for cirrhosis. However, there is still a lack of definitive evidence confirming the beneficial effects of probiotics on cirrhosis.MethodsDatabases including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials that compared the effects of probiotic intervention and control treatments, including placebo, no treatment, and active control, on cirrhosis, published from inception to February 2024. Outcomes included hepatic encephalopathy (HE) reversal, safety and tolerability of probiotics, liver function, quality of life, and other cirrhotic-related outcomes. A meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize evidence.ResultsThirty studies were included. The quantitative synthesis results showed that compared with the control group, probiotics significantly reverse minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) (risk ratio [RR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03 to 2.32) and improve HE (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.06). Additionally, probiotics demonstrated higher safety and tolerability by causing a lower incidence of serious adverse events (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.87). Probiotics could potentially improve liver function by reducing the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.57, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.30), and displayed favorable changes in quality of life (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.75) and gut flora (SMD 1.67, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.06).ConclusionThis systematic review and meta-analysis offers compelling evidence that probiotics are beneficial for cirrhosis by demonstrating reversal of HE, potential for liver function improvements, enhancements in quality of life, and regulation of gut dysbiosis. Furthermore, the apparent safety profile suggests that probiotics are a promising intervention for treating cirrhosis.Clinical trial registration numberCRD42023478380.

Project description:Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) represent one of the main health problems in children. Probiotics are viable bacteria that colonize the intestine and affect the host intestinal microbial balance. Accumulating evidence suggests that probiotic consumption may decrease the incidence of or modify RTIs. The authors systematically reviewed data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the effect of probiotic consumption on RTIs in children.MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for RCTs regarding the effect of probiotics on RTIs in children. The outcomes included number of children experienced with at least 1 RTI episode, duration of illness episodes, days of illness per subject, and school/day care absenteeism due to infection. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled relative risks, or mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI).A total of 23 trials involving 6269 children were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review. None of the trials showed a high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence of outcomes was moderate. The age range of subjects was from newborn to 18 years. The results of meta-analysis showed that probiotic consumption significantly decreased the number of subjects having at least 1 RTI episode (17 RCTs, 4513 children, relative risk 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.96, P?=?0.004). Children supplemented with probiotics had fewer numbers of days of RTIs per person compared with children who had taken a placebo (6 RCTs, 2067 children, MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.02, P?=?0.03), and had fewer numbers of days absent from day care/school (8 RCTs, 1499 children, MD -0.94, 95% CI -1.72 to -0.15, P?=?0.02). However, there was no statistically significant difference of illness episode duration between probiotic intervention group and placebo group (9 RCTs, 2817 children, MD -0.60, 95% CI -1.49 to 0.30, P?=?0.19).Based on the available data and taking into account the safety profile of RCTs, probiotic consumption appears to be a feasible way to decrease the incidence of RTIs in children.

Project description:BackgroundGestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a health challenge during pregnancy and is associated with adverse effects. Dysbiosis of the gut microbiota may play a role in developing inflammation and insulin resistance observed in GDM. Probiotics are supposed to be influential in preventing GDM since they can alter the composition of microbiota in the intestine. Despite the existing studies on the therapeutic effects of probiotics in women with GDM, in this study we aim to systematically review and meta-analyze the results of randomized control trials (RCTs) on the beneficial effects of probiotics supplements on the prevention of GDM in healthy pregnant women.MethodsWeb of science, Scopus and PubMed databases were searched via a precise strategy to gather RCTs related to our study. Duplication removal, screening and data extraction were conducted by two researchers, independently. Quality assessment of eligible studies was conducted by Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random effects model due to substantial heterogeneity among studies.ResultsTen articles met our eligibility criteria from our initial search of 451 articles. Two thousand nine hundred and twenty-one participants without previously diagnosed glucose disturbance were included in our analysis. Probiotics reduced GDM incidence by 33% (RR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.47, 0.95), while greater effect was detected in trials using multiple-strains probiotics (RR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42, 0.99). We did not detect any significant benefits or harms related to probiotics supplements on secondary outcomes including GDM related infantile and maternal complications including preeclampsia, caesarian section, mothers' weight gain during pregnancy, prematurity, macrosomia, hypoglycemia, NICU admission, and birth weight.ConclusionProbiotics supplementation may reduce the incidence of GDM and help control glucose parameters in pregnant women. Further studies are warranted regarding the GDM-related maternal and infantile complications.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022315550, identifier: CRD42022315550.

Dataset Information

Effect of Probiotics on Glycemic Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials.

Background

Objective

Data sources

Data extraction and synthesis

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Effect of Probiotics on Glycemic Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized, Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets