Prebiotics and probiotics for depression and anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Liu RT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6584030 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Prebiotics and probiotics for depression and anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials.
Liu Richard T RT Walsh Rachel F L RFL Sheehan Ana E AE
Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews 20190417
With growing interest in the gut microbiome, prebiotics and probiotics have received considerable attention as potential treatments for depression and anxiety. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of 34 controlled clinical trials evaluating the effects of prebiotics and probiotics on depression and anxiety. Prebiotics did not differ from placebo for depression (d = -.08, p = .51) or anxiety (d = .12, p = .11). Probiotics yielded small but significant effects for depression (d = -.24, p < ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of probiotics and prebiotics on the immune response to influenza vaccination in adults. We conducted a literature search of Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Airiti Library, and PerioPath Index to Taiwan Periodical Literature in Taiwan. Databases were searched from inception to July 2017. We used the Cochrane Review risk of bias assessment tool to assess randomized controlled trial (RCT) quality. A total of 20 RCTs comprising 1979 adults were included in our systematic review. Nine RCTs including 623 participants had sufficient data to be pooled in a meta-analysis. Participants who took probiotics or prebiotics showed significant improvements in the H1N1 strain seroprotection rate (with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.83 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.19-2.82, p = 0.006, I² = 0%), the H3N2 strain seroprotection rate (OR = 2.85, 95% CI = 1.59-5.10, p < 0.001, I² = 0%), and the B strain seroconversion rate (OR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.38-3.21, p < 0.001, I² = 0%). This meta-analysis suggested that probiotics and prebiotics are effective in elevating immunogenicity by influencing seroconversion and seroprotection rates in adults inoculated with influenza vaccines.
| S-EPMC5707647 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is a growing interest in probiotic, prebiotic and synbiotic supplements for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, a systematic review and evaluation is lacking. The purpose of the present study is to assess the efficacy and safety of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics for non-dialysis or non-renal transplant patients with CKD.An extensive literature search will be undertaken to identify potentially eligible studies from electronic databases including PubMed (1946 to present), EMBASE (1974 to present), Web of Science (1900 to present) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, all years). No language restriction will be applied to the search. Both parallel and crossover randomised controlled trials will be included. The risk of bias of each included study will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The primary outcome measures are uraemic toxins. Secondary outcomes include kidney function, adverse cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality, cause-specific death, progression to end-stage kidney disease, quality of life, gastrointestinal function and adverse events. Data will be synthesised using appropriate statistical methods. The quality of evidence for each outcome will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.No ethical approval is required as no primary data will be collected. We will publish findings from this systematic review in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and the data set will be made freely available.CRD42017079177.
| S-EPMC6067341 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundFunctional dyspepsia (FD) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder. Evidence suggests that disturbance of the gastrointestinal microbiota may be implicated in FD. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of prebiotics and probiotics for FD.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (through September 2018). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited adults with FD and that compared prebiotics, probiotics, or synbiotics with placebo or no therapy were eligible. Eligibility assessment and data extraction were performed by two independent researchers. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of remaining symptomatic after therapy. Continuous data were pooled using a standardized or weighted mean difference with a 95% CI.ResultsThe search strategy identified 1062 citations. Five RCTs were eligible for inclusion. The RR of FD symptoms improving with probiotics or probiotics vs placebo was 1.15 (95% CI 1.01-1.30). Probiotics and prebiotics had beneficial effects on symptom scores of FD. Data for synbiotics in the context of FD were sparse, and no definite conclusions could be drawn.Ethics and disseminationThis study belongs to the category of systematic reviews, not clinical trials. Therefore, it does not require ethical approval. The results of this study will be published in influential international academic journals related to this topic.ConclusionProbiotics and prebiotics seemed to be effective treatments for FD, although the individual species and strains that are the most beneficial remain unclear. Using only probiotics failed to improve the symptoms of FD. Further evidence is required before the role of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics in FD can be fully understood.
| S-EPMC7035106 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProbiotics are living microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit. It has been speculated that probiotics might help prevent preterm birth, but in two previous systematic reviews possible major increases in this risk have been suggested. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risk of preterm birth and other adverse pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women taking probiotics, prebiotics or synbiotics.MethodsWe searched six electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science's Core collection and BIOSIS Preview) up to September 2016 and contacted authors for additional data. We included randomized controlled trials in which women with a singleton pregnancy received a probiotic, prebiotic or synbiotic intervention. Two independent reviewers extracted data using a piloted form and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We used random-effects meta-analyses to pool the results.ResultsWe identified 2574 publications, screened 1449 non-duplicate titles and abstracts and read 160 full text articles. The 49 publications that met our inclusion criteria represented 27 studies. No study used synbiotics, one used prebiotics and the rest used probiotics. Being randomized to take probiotics during pregnancy neither increased nor decreased the risk of preterm birth < 34 weeks (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.29-3.64, I2 0%, 1017 women in 5 studies), preterm birth < 37 weeks (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.71-1.63, I2 0%, 2484 women in 11 studies), or most of our secondary outcomes, including gestational diabetes mellitus.ConclusionsWe found no evidence that taking probiotics or prebiotics during pregnancy either increases or decreases the risk of preterm birth or other infant and maternal adverse pregnancy outcomes.Trial registrationWe prospectively published the protocol for this study in the PROSPERO database ( CRD42016048129 ).
| S-EPMC5759212 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Accumulating studies have shown the effects of gut microbiota management tools in improving depression. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics on patients with depression. We searched six databases up to July 2022. In total, 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 786 participants were included. The overall results demonstrated that patients who received prebiotics, probiotics or synbiotics had significantly improved symptoms of depression compared with those in the placebo group. However, subgroup analysis only confirmed the significant antidepressant effects of agents that contained probiotics. In addition, patients with mild or moderate depression could both benefit from the treatment. Studies with a lower proportion of females reported stronger effects for alleviating depressive symptoms. In conclusion, agents that manipulate gut microbiota might improve mild-to-moderate depression. It is necessary to further investigate the benefits of prebiotic, probiotic and synbiotic treatments relative to antidepressants and follow up with individuals over a longer time before these therapies are implemented in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC10308754 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is little or no information available on the impact of funding by the food industry on trial outcomes and methodological quality of synbiotics, probiotics and prebiotics research in infants. The objective of this study was to compare the methodological quality, outcomes of food industry sponsored trials versus non industry sponsored trials, with regards to supplementation of synbiotics, probiotics and prebiotics in infant formula.A comprehensive search was conducted to identify published and unpublished randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Cochrane methodology was used to assess the risk of bias of included RCTs in the following domains: 1) sequence generation; 2) allocation concealment; 3) blinding; 4) incomplete outcome data; 5) selective outcome reporting; and 6) other bias. Clinical outcomes and authors' conclusions were reported in frequencies and percentages. The association between source of funding, risk of bias, clinical outcomes and conclusions were assessed using Pearson's Chi-square test and the Fisher's exact test. A p-value < 0.05 was statistically significant.Sixty seven completed and 3 on-going RCTs were included. Forty (59.7%) were funded by food industry, 11 (16.4%) by non-industry entities and 16 (23.9%) did not specify source of funding. Several risk of bias domains, especially sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, were not adequately reported. There was no significant association between the source of funding and sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and selective reporting, majority of reported clinical outcomes or authors' conclusions. On the other hand, source of funding was significantly associated with the domains of incomplete outcome data, free of other bias domains as well as reported antibiotic use and conclusions on weight gain.In RCTs on infants fed infant formula containing probiotics, prebiotics or synbiotics, the source of funding did not influence the majority of outcomes in favour of the sponsors' products. More non-industry funded research is needed to further assess the impact of funding on methodological quality, reported clinical outcomes and authors' conclusions.
| S-EPMC3832685 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPrevious clinical trials indicate that probiotic consumption may improve blood glucose control, however, results from randomized trials on glycemic control have been inconsistent.ObjectiveTo investigate the effects of probiotics on glycemic control in a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrial.gov through October 2014.Data extraction and synthesisTwo 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).ResultsSeventeen 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).ConclusionsProbiotic 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.
| S-EPMC4498615 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Probiotic and prebiotic products have shown potential health benefits, including for the prevention of adverse pregnancy outcomes. The incidence of adverse effects in pregnant people and their infants associated with probiotic/prebiotic/synbiotic intake, however, remains unclear. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the evidence on adverse effects of maternal probiotic, prebiotic, and/or synbiotic supplementation during pregnancy and lactation and interpret the findings to help inform clinical decision-making and care of this population. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Scientific databases were searched using pre-determined terms, and risk of bias assessments were conducted to determine study quality. Inclusion criteria were English language studies, human studies, access to full-text, and probiotic/prebiotic/synbiotic supplementation to the mother and not the infant. In total, 11/100 eligible studies reported adverse effects and were eligible for inclusion in quantitative analysis, and data were visualised in a GOfER diagram. Probiotic and prebiotic products are safe for use during pregnancy and lactation. One study reported increased risk of vaginal discharge and changes in stool consistency (relative risk [95% CI]: 3.67 [1.04, 13.0]) when administering Lactobacillus rhamnosus and L. reuteri. Adverse effects associated with probiotic and prebiotic use do not pose any serious health concerns to mother or infant. Our findings and knowledge translation visualisations provide healthcare professionals and consumers with information to make evidence-informed decisions about the use of pre- and probiotics.
| S-EPMC8308823 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4979858 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundDepression is a common mental illness that is widely recognized by its lack of pleasure, fatigue, low mood, and, in severe cases, even suicidal tendencies. Photobiomodulation (PBM) is a non-invasive neuromodulation technique that could treat patients with mood disorders such as depression.MethodsA systematic search of ten databases, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for depression, was conducted from the time of library construction to September 25, 2023. The primary outcome was depression. The secondary outcome was sleep. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan (version 5.4) and Stata (version 14.0). Subgroup analyses were performed to identify sources of heterogeneity. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).ResultsThree thousand two hundred and sixty-five studies were retrieved from the database and screened for inclusion in eleven trials. The forest plot results demonstrated that PBM alleviated depression (SMD = -0.55, 95% CI [-0.75, -0.35], I2 = 46%). But it is not statistically significant for patients' sleep outcomes (SMD = -0.82, 95% CI [-2.41, 0.77], I2 = 0%, p > 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that s-PBM was superior to t-PBM in relieving symptoms of depression. The best improvement for t-PBM was achieved using a wavelength of 823 nm, fluence of 10-100 J/cm2, irradiance of 50-100 mW/cm2, irradiance time of 30 min, treatment frequency < 3/week, and number of treatments >15 times. The best improvement for s-PBM was achieved using a wavelength of 808 nm, fluence ≤1 J/cm2, irradiance of 50-100 mW/cm2, irradiance time ≤ 5 min, treatment frequency ≥ 3/week, number of treatments >15 times. All results had evidence quality that was either moderate or very low, and there was no bias in publication.ConclusionWe conclude that PBM is effective in reducing depression symptoms in patients. However, the current number of studies is small, and further studies are needed to extend the current analysis results.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, CRD42023444677.
| S-EPMC10866010 | biostudies-literature