Recommendations to Improve Quality of Probiotic Systematic Reviews With Meta-Analyses

Author:

McFarland Lynne V.12,Hecht Gail3,Sanders Mary E.4,Goff Debra A.5,Goldstein Ellie J. C.6,Hill Colin7,Johnson Stuart89,Kashi Maryam R.10,Kullar Ravina11,Marco Maria L.12,Merenstein Daniel J.13,Millette Mathieu1415,Preidis Geoffrey A.16,Quigley Eamonn M. M.17,Reid Gregor18,Salminen Seppo19,Sniffen Jason C.2021,Sokol Harry222324,Szajewska Hania25,Tancredi Daniel J.26,Woolard Kristin20

Affiliation:

1. McFarland Consulting, Seattle, Washington

2. Public Health Reserve Corp, Seattle Washington

3. Division of Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois

4. International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics, Centennial, Colorado

5. Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Ohio State University College of Pharmacy, Columbus

6. R.M. Alden Research Laboratory, Santa Monica, California

7. International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics, University College Cork, Ireland

8. Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois

9. Departments of Medicine and Research, Edward Hines Jr Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois

10. Department of Gastroenterology, AdventHealth Medical Group, Orlando, Florida

11. Expert Stewardship Inc, Newport Beach, California

12. Department of Food Science and Technology, University of California, Davis

13. Research Programs Family Medicine, Department of Human Science, Georgetown University School of Health, Washington, DC

14. Bio-K Plus, a Kerry Company, Laval, Quebec, Canada

15. INRS-Centre Armand-Frappier Santé Biotechnologie, Laval, Quebec, Canada

16. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston

17. Lynda K and David M. Underwood Center for Digestive Disorders, Houston Methodist Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical College, Houston, Texas

18. St Joseph’s Hospital, Lawson Health Research Institute, London, Ontario, Canada

19. Functional Foods Forum, Faculty of Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland

20. Infectious Disease Consultants, Altamonte Springs, Florida

21. Department of Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine Section, University of South Florida, Tampa

22. Gastroenterology Department, Centre de Recherche Saint-Antoine, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, Sorbonne University, INSERM, Paris, France

23. Paris Centre for Microbiome Medicine FHU, Paris, France

24. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Unité Mixte de Recherche, Micalis & AgroParisTech, Jouy en Josas, France

25. Department of Paediatrics, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland

26. Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento

Abstract

ImportanceSystematic reviews and meta-analyses often report conflicting results when assessing evidence for probiotic efficacy, partially because of the lack of understanding of the unique features of probiotic trials. As a consequence, clinical decisions on the use of probiotics have been confusing.ObjectiveTo provide recommendations to improve the quality and consistency of systematic reviews with meta-analyses on probiotics, so evidence-based clinical decisions can be made with more clarity.Evidence ReviewFor this consensus statement, an updated literature review was conducted (January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2022) to supplement a previously published 2018 literature search to identify areas where probiotic systematic reviews with meta-analyses might be improved. An expert panel of 21 scientists and physicians with experience on writing and reviewing probiotic reviews and meta-analyses was convened and used a modified Delphi method to develop recommendations for future probiotic reviews.FindingsA total of 206 systematic reviews with meta-analysis components on probiotics were screened and representative examples discussed to determine areas for improvement. The expert panel initially identified 36 items that were inconsistently reported or were considered important to consider in probiotic meta-analyses. Of these, a consensus was reached for 9 recommendations to improve the quality of future probiotic meta-analyses.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, the expert panel reached a consensus on 9 recommendations that should promote improved reporting of probiotic systematic reviews with meta-analyses and, thereby, assist in clinical decisions regarding the use of probiotics.

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

Subject

General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3