Influence of unhealthy food and beverage marketing on children's dietary intake and preference: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Marketing of foods and beverages high in fat, sugar and salt are suggested to contribute to poor dietary behaviours in children and diet-related diseases later in life. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials aimed to assess the effects of unhealthy food and beverage marketing on dietary intake (grams or kilocalories) and dietary preference (preference score or percentage of participants who selected specific foods/beverages) among children 2 to 18 years of age. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO up to January 2015 for terms related to advertising, unhealthy foods or beverages among children. Randomized trials that assessed the effects of unhealthy food and beverage marketing compared with non-dietary advertisement or no advertisement in children were considered eligible. Two authors independently extracted information on study characteristics and outcomes of interest and assessed risk of bias and the overall quality of evidence using grade methodology. Meta-analysis was conducted separately for dietary intake and preference using a random-effects model. We identified 29 eligible studies, of which 17 studies were included for meta-analysis of dietary preference and nine for meta-analysis of dietary intake. Almost half of the studies were at high risk of bias. Our meta-analysis showed that in children exposed to unhealthy dietary marketing, dietary intake significantly increased (mean difference [MD] = 30.4 kcal, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.9 to 57.9, and MD = 4.8 g, 95%CI 0.8 to 8.8) during or shortly after exposure to advertisements. Similarly, children exposed to the unhealthy dietary marketing had a higher risk of selecting the advertised foods or beverages (relative risk = 1.1, 95%CI 1.0 to 1.2; P = 0.052). The evidence indicates that unhealthy food and beverage marketing increases dietary intake (moderate quality evidence) and preference (moderate to low quality evidence) for energy-dense, low-nutrition food and beverage. Unhealthy food and beverage marketing increased dietary intake and influenced dietary preference in children during or shortly after exposure to advertisements. © 2016 World Obesity.

Probiotics and synbiotics for the prevention of postoperative infections following abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative infections, particularly surgical site infections (SSIs), cause significant morbidity and mortality. Probiotics or synbiotics are a potential prevention strategy. AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of probiotics/synbiotics for reducing postoperative infection risk following abdominal surgery. METHODS: We searched AMED, Central, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, and grey literature for randomized controlled trials of elective abdominal surgery patients administered probiotics or synbiotics compared to placebo or standard care. Primary outcome was SSIs. Secondary outcomes were adverse events, respiratory tract infections (RTIs), urinary tract infections (UTIs), combined infections, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Using random-effects meta-analyses, we estimated the relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Tests were performed for heterogeneity, subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted, and the overall evidence quality was graded. FINDINGS: We identified 20 trials (N = 1374 participants) reporting postoperative infections. Probiotics/synbiotics reduced SSIs (RR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.41-0.98; N = 15 studies), UTIs (RR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.15-0.57; N = 11), and combined infections (RR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.35-0.70; N = 18). There was no difference between groups for adverse events (RR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.61-1.30; N = 6), RTIs (RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.36-1.00; N = 14), length of stay (MD: -1.19; 95% CI: -2.94 to 0.56; N = 12), or mortality (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.58-2.48; N = 15). CONCLUSION: Our review suggests that probiotics/synbiotics reduce SSIs and UTIs from abdominal surgeries compared to placebo or standard of care, without evidence of safety risk. Overall study quality was low, owing mostly to imprecision (few patients and events, or wide CIs); thus larger multi-centered trials are needed to further assess the certainty in this estimate.

Probiotics for the prevention of pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics alter the microbial balance within the gastrointestinal tract. Probiotics may prevent antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD) via restoration of the gut microflora. Antibiotics are prescribed frequently in children and AAD is common in this population. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of probiotics (any specified strain or dose) for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea in children. To assess adverse events associated with the use of probiotics when co-administered with antibiotics in children. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL , AMED, and the Web of Science (inception to August 2006) were searched along with specialized registers including the Cochrane IBD/FBD Review Group, CISCOM, Chalmers PedCAM Research Register and trial registries from inception to 2005. Letters were sent to authors of included trials, nutra/pharmaceutical companies, and experts in the field requesting additional information on ongoing or unpublished trials. Conference proceedings, dissertation abstracts, and reference lists from included and relevant articles were hand searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized, parallel, controlled (placebo, active, or no treatment) trials comparing co-administered probiotics with antibiotics for the prevention of diarrhea secondary to antibiotic use in children (0 to 18 years). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Methodological quality assessment and data extraction were conducted independently by two authors (BCJ, AS). Dichotomous data (incidence of diarrhea, adverse events) were combined using pooled relative risks, and continuous data (mean duration of diarrhea, mean daily stool frequency) as weighted mean differences, along with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Adverse events were summarized using risk difference. For overall pooled results on the incidence of diarrhea, a priori sensitivity analyses included per protocol versus intention to treat, random versus fixed effects, and methodological quality criterion. Subgroup analysis were conducted on probiotic strain, dose, definition of antibiotic-associated diarrhea, and antibiotic agent. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Trials included treatment with either Lactobacilli spp., Bifidobacterium spp., Streptococcus spp., or Saccharomyces boulardii alone or in combination. Six studies used a single strain probiotic agent and four combined two probiotic strains. The per protocol analysis for 9/10 trials reporting on the incidence of diarrhea show statistically significant results favouring probiotics over active/non active controls (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.74). However, intention to treat analysis showed non-significant results overall (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.63). Five of ten trials monitored for adverse events (n = 647); none reported a serious adverse event. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Probiotics show promise for the prevention of pediatric AAD. While per protocol analysis yields treatment effect estimates that are both statistically and clinically significant, as does analysis of high quality studies, the estimate from the intention to treat analysis was not statistically significant. Future studies should involve probiotic strains and doses with the most promising evidence (e.g., Lactobacillus GG, Lactobacillus sporogenes, Saccharomyces boulardii at 5 to 40 billion colony forming units/day). Research done to date does not permit determination of the effect of age (e.g., infant versus older children) or antibiotic duration (e.g., 5 days versus 10 days). Future trials would benefit from a validated primary outcome measure for antibiotic-associated diarrhea that is sensitive to change and reflects what treatment effect clinicians, parents, and children consider important. The current data are promising, but it is premature to routinely recommend probiotics for the prevention of pediatric AAD.