The methodological quality and clinical applicability of meta-analyses on probiotics in 2020: A cross-sectional study - 18/09/21
, Katarzyna Majkutewicz c, Ewelina Rybka d, Marcin Kutek a, Alicja Dębska-Ślizień b, Jacek M. Witkowski aBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
| pages | 10 |
| Iconographies | 3 |
| Vidéos | 0 |
| Autres | 0 |
Abstract |
Systematic reviews with meta-analyses (SR/MA) are frequently conducted to investigate clinical efficacy of probiotics. However, only rigorously prepared analyses can serve as the highest level of evidence for a specified research question. We have aimed to determine (1) what is the methodological quality of recent SR/MA conducted to assess the efficacy of probiotics; (2) whether the results of SR/MA have a clinical application; and (3) what are factors associated with better quality and applicability of the SR/MA.
We systematically searched 4 databases for SR/MA on the probiotics efficacy published in 2020 (PROSPERO CRD42020222716). The AMSTAR 2 tool and pre-defined authors’ criteria were used to evaluate methodological quality and clinical applicability, respectively.
A total of 114 SR/MA were appraised. In the case of 88 papers (77%), the overall confidence in the results was rated as “critically low”. The most prevalent flaws were lack of list of excluded studies with justification (79.8%), lack of study protocol (60.5%), and problems with appropriate results combination(54.4%). A declaration of conduction a probiotic efficacy SR/MA could have been misleading in case of 18 studies that included also synbiotics, paraprobiotics, and prebiotics trials in analyses. Only 14 SR/MA provided results that can be apply in clinical practice. Higher journal impact factor and European affiliation of the 1st and corresponding authors were most consistently associated with higher odds of AMSTAR 2 items fulfillments.
Based on our findings, SR/MA of probiotics trials cannot be treated as the highest level of evidence without a careful evaluation of their methodological validity.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Graphical Abstract |
Highlights |
• | According to the AMSTAR 2 tool, 77% of meta-analyses were of critically low quality. |
• | Probiotic strains and dosages were rarely taken into account in the meta-analyses. |
• | The results can be used by both researchers conducting meta-analyses and readers. |
Abbreviations : AMSTAR 2, GRADE, JIF, RoB
Keywords : Quality of evidence, GRADE, Overview of systematic reviews, Microbiome
Plan
Vol 142
Article 112044- octobre 2021 Retour au numéro
Article précédent
- A novel caffeic acid derivative prevents renal remodeling after ischemia/reperfusion injury
- Cheng-Wei Huang, Shih-Yi Lee, Tzu-Tang Wei, Yueh-Hsiung Kuo, Shao-Tung Wu, Hui-Chun Ku
- Impaired brown adipose tissue is differentially modulated in insulin-resistant obese wistar and type 2 diabetic Goto-Kakizaki rats
- Tamires Duarte Afonso Serdan, Laureane Nunes Masi, Joice Naiara Bertaglia Pereira, Luiz Eduardo Rodrigues, Amanda Lins Alecrim, Maria Vitoria Martins Scervino, Vinicius Leonardo Sousa Diniz, Alef Aragão Carneiro dos Santos, Celso Pereira Batista Sousa Filho, Tatiana Carolina Alba- Loureiro, Gabriel Nasri Marzuca-Nassr, Roberto Barbosa Bazotte, Renata Gorjão, Tania Cristina Pithon-Curi, Rui Curi, Sandro Massao Hirabara
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’achat d’article à l’unité est indisponible à l’heure actuelle.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?