Effectiveness of probiotics on the occurrence of infections in older people: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: infectious diseases in older people are associated with higher mortality rates and probiotics have been hypothesised to reduce the occurrence of infection. OBJECTIVES: to assess the effectiveness and safety of probiotics in the occurrence of infections in older adults in comparison to placebo. METHODS: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials were conducted on 30 December 2016 using Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and LILACS databases. Efficacy outcomes were: occurrence of infection, quality of life, mortality and mean duration of infection per episode. Safety outcomes were adverse events. Data were analysed using relative risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Relative risk ratios were pooled where more than three estimates were available. RESULTS: fifteen articles were included, with a total of 5,916 participants with a mean age of 75.21 years. The effect of probiotics was not significantly different from that reported for placebo on the occurrence of infection, adverse events, mortality or mean duration of infection episodes (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.08; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.12; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.72; MD -0.35, 95% CI -1.57 to 0.87, respectively). CONCLUSION: the current low-quality evidence does not support the use of probiotics for the reduction in the occurrence of infection in older adults, however, the safety outcomes were similar between probiotics and placebo. Further research is required to confirm these findings.PROSPERO: CRD42014013707.

Systematic reviews showed insufficient evidence for clinical practice in 2004: what about in 2011? The next appeal for the evidence-based medicine age.

RATIONALE AND AIM: The aims of the Cochrane systematic reviews are to make readily available and up-to-date information for clinical practice, offering consistent evidence and straightforward recommendations. In 2004, we evaluated the conclusions from Cochrane systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in terms of their recommendations for clinical practice and found that 47.83% of them had insufficient evidence for use in clinical practice. We proposed to reanalyze the reviews to evaluate whether this percentage had significantly decreased. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2011) was conducted. We randomly selected reviews across all 52 Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups. RESULTS: We analyzed 1128 completed systematic reviews. Of these, 45.30% concluded that the interventions studied were likely to be beneficial, of which only 2.04% recommended no further research. In total, 45.04% of the reviews reported that the evidence did not support either benefit or harm, of which 0.8% did not recommend further studies and 44.24% recommended additional studies; the latter has decreased from our previous study with a difference of 3.59%. CONCLUSION: Only a small number of the Cochrane collaboration's systematic reviews support clinical interventions with no need for additional research. A larger number of high-quality randomized clinical trials are necessary to change the 'insufficient evidence' scenario for clinical practice illustrated by the Cochrane database. It is recommended that we should produce higher-quality primary studies in active collaboration and consultation with global scholars and societies so that this can represent a major component of methodological advance in this context.