Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Recommendations to Improve Quality of Probiotic Systematic Reviews With Meta-Analyses.
McFarland, Lynne V; Hecht, Gail; Sanders, Mary E; Goff, Debra A; Goldstein, Ellie J C; Hill, Colin; Johnson, Stuart; Kashi, Maryam R; Kullar, Ravina; Marco, Maria L; Merenstein, Daniel J; Millette, Mathieu; Preidis, Geoffrey A; Quigley, Eamonn M M; Reid, Gregor; Salminen, Seppo; Sniffen, Jason C; Sokol, Harry; Szajewska, Hania; Tancredi, Daniel J; Woolard, Kristin.
Afiliación
  • McFarland LV; McFarland Consulting, Seattle, Washington.
  • Hecht G; Public Health Reserve Corp, Seattle Washington.
  • Sanders ME; Division of Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois.
  • Goff DA; International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics, Centennial, Colorado.
  • Goldstein EJC; Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Ohio State University College of Pharmacy, Columbus.
  • Hill C; R.M. Alden Research Laboratory, Santa Monica, California.
  • Johnson S; International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics, University College Cork, Ireland.
  • Kashi MR; Stritch School of Medicine, Loyola University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
  • Kullar R; Departments of Medicine and Research, Edward Hines Jr Veterans Affairs Hospital, Hines, Illinois.
  • Marco ML; Department of Gastroenterology, AdventHealth Medical Group, Orlando, Florida.
  • Merenstein DJ; Expert Stewardship Inc, Newport Beach, California.
  • Millette M; Department of Food Science and Technology, University of California, Davis.
  • Preidis GA; Research Programs Family Medicine, Department of Human Science, Georgetown University School of Health, Washington, DC.
  • Quigley EMM; Bio-K Plus, a Kerry Company, Laval, Quebec, Canada.
  • Reid G; INRS-Centre Armand-Frappier Santé Biotechnologie, Laval, Quebec, Canada.
  • Salminen S; Department of Pediatrics, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Hospital, Houston.
  • Sniffen JC; Lynda K and David M. Underwood Center for Digestive Disorders, Houston Methodist Hospital and Weill Cornell Medical College, Houston, Texas.
  • Sokol H; St Joseph's Hospital, Lawson Health Research Institute, London, Ontario, Canada.
  • Szajewska H; Functional Foods Forum, Faculty of Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
  • Tancredi DJ; Infectious Disease Consultants, Altamonte Springs, Florida.
  • Woolard K; Department of Internal Medicine, Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine Section, University of South Florida, Tampa.
JAMA Netw Open ; 6(12): e2346872, 2023 Dec 01.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38064222
Importance: Systematic 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. Objective: To 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 Review: For 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. Findings: A 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 Relevance: In 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.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Probióticos Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: JAMA Netw Open Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Probióticos Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: JAMA Netw Open Año: 2023 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos