-
BMC Medicine Jul 2023Probiotics are often used to prevent antibiotic-induced low-diversity dysbiosis, however their effect is not yet sufficiently summarized in this regard. We aimed to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Probiotics are often used to prevent antibiotic-induced low-diversity dysbiosis, however their effect is not yet sufficiently summarized in this regard. We aimed to investigate the effects of concurrent probiotic supplementation on gut microbiome composition during antibiotic therapy.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reporting the differences in gut microbiome diversity between patients on antibiotic therapy with and without concomitant probiotic supplementation. The systematic search was performed in three databases (MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)) without filters on 15 October 2021. A random-effects model was used to estimate pooled mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021282983).
RESULTS
Of 11,769 identified articles, 15 were eligible in the systematic review and 5 in the meta-analyses. Quantitative data synthesis for Shannon (MD = 0.23, 95% CI: [(-)0.06-0.51]), Chao1 (MD = 11.59 [(-)18.42-41.60]) and observed OTUs (operational taxonomic unit) (MD = 17.15 [(-)9.43-43.73]) diversity indices revealed no significant difference between probiotic supplemented and control groups. Lacking data prevented meta-analyzing other diversity indices; however, most of the included studies reported no difference in the other reported α- and ß-diversity indices between the groups. Changes in the taxonomic composition varied across the eligible studies but tended to be similar in both groups. However, they showed a potential tendency to restore baseline levels in both groups after 3-8 weeks. This is the first meta-analysis and the most comprehensive review of the topic to date using high quality methods. The limited number of studies and low sample sizes are the main limitations of our study. Moreover, there was high variability across the studies regarding the indication of antibiotic therapy and the type, dose, and duration of antimicrobials and probiotics.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results showed that probiotic supplementation during antibiotic therapy was not found to be influential on gut microbiome diversity indices. Defining appropriate microbiome diversity indices, their standard ranges, and their clinical relevance would be crucial.
Topics: Humans; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Probiotics; Dietary Supplements; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Dysbiosis
PubMed: 37468916
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-023-02961-0 -
Nutrients Mar 2023Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is prevalent with lasting health implications for the mother and offspring. Medical therapy is the foundation of GDM management, for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is prevalent with lasting health implications for the mother and offspring. Medical therapy is the foundation of GDM management, for achieving optimal glycemic control often requires treatment with insulin or metformin. Gut dysbiosis is a feature of GDM pregnancies, therefore, dietary manipulation of the gut microbiota may offer a new avenue for management. Probiotics are a relatively new intervention, which can reduce the mother's blood sugar levels and, furthermore, adjust glucose and lipid metabolism in both mother and offspring.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore the effect of probiotics/synbiotics on glucose and lipid metabolism in women with GDM.
METHODS
A systematic search of the literature was conducted using the electronic databases Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, and EBOSCO, published between 1 January 2012 and 1 November 2022. A total of 11 randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) were analyzed. The indicators included fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting serum insulin (FSI), the homoeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI), total cholesterol (TC), HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglycerides (TG), the mean weight at end of trial, and gestational weight gain (GWG).
RESULTS
Compared with the placebo, probiotics/synbiotics were associated with a statistically significant improvement in FPG (MD = -2.33, 95% CI = -4.27, -0.40, = 0.02), FSI (MD = -2.47 95% CI = -3.82, -1.12, = 0.0003), HOMA-IR (MD = -0.40, 95% CI = -0.74, -0.06, = 0.02), and TC (MD = -6.59, 95% CI = -12.23,--0.95, = 0.02), while other factors had no significant difference. The subgroup analysis revealed that the kind of supplement led to heterogeneity for FPG and FSI, while heterogeneity was not found for others.
CONCLUSION
Probiotics/synbiotics could control glucose and lipid metabolism in pregnant women with GDM. There was a significant improvement in FPG, FSI, HOMA-IR, and TC. The use of specific probiotic supplementation may be a promising prevention and therapeutic strategy for GDM. However, due to the heterogeneity among existing studies, further studies are warranted to address the limitations of existing evidence and better inform the management of GDM.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Diabetes, Gestational; Synbiotics; Glucose; Blood Glucose; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Probiotics; Insulin; Insulin Resistance; Cholesterol, HDL; Lipid Metabolism
PubMed: 36986107
DOI: 10.3390/nu15061375 -
Journal of Alternative and... Feb 2021Broad-spectrum antibiotics are the first-line treatment for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). However, many antibiotics have a considerable side-effect...
Broad-spectrum antibiotics are the first-line treatment for small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). However, many antibiotics have a considerable side-effect profile and SIBO commonly reoccurs after successful eradication with antibiotics. Alternative therapies such as probiotics, therapeutic diets, and herbal medicines have been used to individualize SIBO management, particularly in recalcitrant cases. The objective of this review is to evaluate the role of alternative therapies in SIBO treatment. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register were systematically searched for clinical studies evaluating alternative therapies in the management of SIBO. Human studies in which an alternative intervention was used to treat SIBO were included. Alternative interventions were defined as an intervention that included a probiotic supplement, herbal preparation, or a dietary change. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomized clinical trials with or without a control, and crossover studies were included. The following information was extracted from the selected studies: study type, study participants, SIBO subtype, intervention, comparison, outcome measures, relevant results, relevant side effects, and Jadad score. Eight studies met inclusion criteria. The studies evaluated probiotics ( = 5), therapeutic diet ( = 1), and herbal medicines ( = 2). Among these studies, there were four RCTs, two open-label single-arm studies, one randomized, double-blind crossover study, and one two-arm open-label study with crossover. Main results are summarized. There may be studies not captured by the defined search criteria. Additionally, studies used different methodologies in both breath testing and measurement of clinical symptoms, making it difficult to draw conclusions on SIBO eradication and symptom improvement across studies. Our findings suggest preliminary evidence for a role of alternative therapies in the treatment of SIBO. However, robust clinical trials are generally lacking. Existing studies tend to be small and lack standardized formulations of treatment. Breath testing protocols and clinical symptom measurement greatly varied between studies. Large-scale, randomized, placebo-controlled trials are needed to further evaluate the best way to utilize alternative therapies in the treatment of SIBO.
Topics: Blind Loop Syndrome; Diet Therapy; Humans; Phytotherapy; Probiotics
PubMed: 33074705
DOI: 10.1089/acm.2020.0275 -
Journal of Global Health May 2023Probiotics are non-invasive therapies composed of live bacteria and yeast. Administration of prebiotics improved the health status of pregnant and lactating women, as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Probiotics are non-invasive therapies composed of live bacteria and yeast. Administration of prebiotics improved the health status of pregnant and lactating women, as well as newborns. This review aimed to appraise the evidence concerning the effectiveness of probiotics on the mental health of pregnant women, lactating mother and the microbiota of the newborn.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis ascertained quantitative studies published in Medline (PubMed), Clinical Key, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Library, and Google scholar. Two authors independently screened and extracted the data from the primary studies that analysed the efficacy of probiotics on the mental health of pregnant and lactating women and the microbiota of the newborn. We adopted Cochrane Collaboration guidelines and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The qualities of included trials were assessed by Cochrane collaboration's risk of bias tool (ROB-2).
RESULTS
Sixteen trials comprised 946 pregnant women, 524 were lactating mothers, and 1678 were infants. The sample size of primary studies ranged from 36 to 433. Probiotics were administered as interventions, using either a single strain of Bifidobacterium or Lactobacillus or a double-strain combination of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium. Probiotics supplementation reduced anxiety in pregnant (n = 676, standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.01; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.28,0.30, P = 0.04, I = 70) and lactating women (n = 514, SMD = -0.17; 95% CI = -1.62,1.27, P = 0.98, I = 0). Similarly, probiotics decreased depression in pregnant (n = 298, SMD = 0.05; 95% CI = -0.24,0.35, P = 0.20, I = 40) and lactating women (n = 518, SMD = -0.10; 95% CI = -1.29,-1.05, P = 0.11, I = 60%). Similarly, probiotics supplementation improved the gut microbiota and reduced the duration of crying, abdominal distension, abdominal colic and diarrhoea.
CONCLUSION
Non-invasive probiotic therapies are more useful to pregnant and lactating women and newborns.
REGISTRATION
The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022372126).
Topics: Infant; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Depression; Lactation; Probiotics; Anxiety; Gastrointestinal Microbiome
PubMed: 37218177
DOI: 10.7189/jogh.13.04038 -
Nutrition Reviews Feb 2023The safety and efficacy of probiotics during severe illness has been a subject of ongoing interest. The impact of probiotics can worsen nutritional status, which could... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
CONTEXT
The safety and efficacy of probiotics during severe illness has been a subject of ongoing interest. The impact of probiotics can worsen nutritional status, which could potentially result in a deterioration of the patient's overall life-threatening status.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the safety and efficacy of probiotics in reducing intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infections in adult critically ill patients.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed and Cochrane library databases for the period 2011-2020 were searched.
DATA EXTRACTION
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) methodology was used to search for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the use of probiotics among critically ill patients.
DATA ANALYSIS
No significant difference was observed between probiotics and control groups in terms of the mortality rate (risk ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval .82 to 1.55, P = .46). Probiotics, however, provided a significant reduction in ICU-acquired infections (risk ratio .73, 95% confidence interval .58 to .93, P = .01).
CONCLUSION
The use of probiotics seems to play a role in decreasing the incidence of ICU-acquired infections. Also, a potential reduction in terms of the incidence of diarrhea has been reported, with no examples of adverse incidents, suggesting probiotics are safe.
Topics: Humans; Adult; Critical Illness; Probiotics; Diarrhea; Intensive Care Units
PubMed: 35985275
DOI: 10.1093/nutrit/nuac059 -
Journal of Affective Disorders Dec 2023Anxiety can adversely affect human well-being. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of interventions that alter the gut microbes (including probiotics,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Anxiety can adversely affect human well-being. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of interventions that alter the gut microbes (including probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics) on anxiety.
METHODS
A systematic meta-analysis of the effects of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on anxiety was conducted by searching randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 13 databases. The primary outcomes were the pre- and post-intervention anxiety scores in the intervention and placebo groups. Anxiety scores were extracted as standard mean differences (SMDs) and pooled based on a random effects model. Subgroup analyses of anxiety scales, health status, gastrointestinal symptoms, flora strains, treatment type, probiotic dose, region, and treatment duration were also performed.
RESULTS
29 RCTs (2035 participants) were included, revealing that both probiotics and synbiotics significantly reduced anxiety scores. Additionally, anxiety scores did not significantly reduce when comparing prebiotics and placebos.
LIMITATIONS
Owing to the small combined effect size of probiotic/prebiotic/synbiotic treatments and the relatively few studies on prebiotics and synbiotics included in the analysis, the findings of probiotic/prebiotic/synbiotic treatments are preliminary.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study indicated that probiotics and synbiotics can reduce anxiety scores; however, it might be premature to conclude their clinical efficacy in alleviating anxiety due to the small effect size. There is no consensus regarding the optimal dose, treatment duration, treatment type, or probiotic strain to improve anxiety. Moreover, the mechanisms by which probiotics and synbiotics improve anxiety remain unclear. More RCTs are needed to determine the mechanisms of action and to identify appropriate markers to clarify their effects.
Topics: Humans; Synbiotics; Prebiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Probiotics; Anxiety
PubMed: 37734624
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2023.09.018 -
Journal of Translational Medicine Aug 2023This paper aimed to examine the effects of probiotics on eight factors in overweight or obese children by meta-analysis, namely, body mass index (BMI), total cholesterol... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This paper aimed to examine the effects of probiotics on eight factors in overweight or obese children by meta-analysis, namely, body mass index (BMI), total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), adiponectin, leptin and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and summarize the mechanisms of action of probiotics based on the existing researches.
METHODS
Six databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, SinoMed and CNKI) were searched until March 2023. Review Manager 5.4 was used for meta-analysis. The data were analysed using weighted mean differences (WMDs) or standardized mean differences (SMDs) under a fixed effect model or random effect model to observe the effects of probiotic administration on the included indicators.
RESULTS
Four publications with a total of 206 overweight or obesity children were included. According to the meta-analysis, probiotics were able to significantly decrease the levels of HDL-C (MD, 0.06; 95% CI 0.03, 0.09; P = 0.0001), LDL-C (MD, - 0.06; 95% CI - 0.12, - 0.00; P = 0.04), adiponectin (MD, 1.39; 95% CI 1.19, 1.59; P < 0.00001), leptin (MD, - 2.72; 95% CI - 2.9, - 2.54; P < 0.00001) and TNF-α (MD, - 4.91; 95% CI - 7.15, - 2.67; P < 0.0001) compared to those in the placebo group. Still, for BMI, the palcebo group seemed to be better than the probiotic group (MD, 0.85; 95% CI 0.04, 1.66; P = 0.04). TC (MD, - 0.05; 95% CI - 0.12, 0.02; P = 0.14) and TG (MD, - 0.16; 95% CI - 0.36, 0.05; P = 0.14) were not different between two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
This review drew that probiotics might act as a role in regulating HDL-C, LDL-C, adiponectin, leptin and TNF-α in overweight or obesity children. Additionally, our systematic review yielded that probiotics might regulate lipid metabolism and improve obese associated symptoms by some paths. This meta-analysis has been registered at PROSPERO with ID: CRD42023408359.
Topics: Humans; Child; Overweight; Leptin; Pediatric Obesity; Cholesterol, LDL; Adiponectin; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha; Probiotics; Triglycerides; Cholesterol, HDL
PubMed: 37542325
DOI: 10.1186/s12967-023-04319-9 -
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews Apr 2021This systematic review aimed to synthesise the results from studies investigating the effects of prebiotics and probiotics on kynurenine pathway metabolism. Thirteen... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This systematic review aimed to synthesise the results from studies investigating the effects of prebiotics and probiotics on kynurenine pathway metabolism. Thirteen studies were identified for inclusion, comprising 12 probiotic and two prebiotic arms. Participants included healthy individuals and individuals with various clinical conditions. Twelve metabolites were examined across the studies, using a range of biological samples. Across all interventions, 11 reported an effect on ≤ metabolite. Although limited by clinical and methodological heterogeneity, pooled analysis (n = 253) found probiotics to significantly affect serum kynurenine (g = 0.315, CI = 0.070 to 0.560, p = 0.012, 4 studies, I = 0%) and the kynurenine:tryptophan ratio (g = 0.442, CI = 0.074 to 0.810, p = 0.018, 4 studies, I = 42 %). Risk of bias across the studies was generally low. The results provide preliminary evidence that probiotics can modulate kynurenine pathway metabolism, with less evidence available regarding prebiotics. Future studies which further consider methodological confounds and sample characteristics are required, to establish intervention efficacy. PROSPERO registration #CRD42019154677.
Topics: Humans; Kynurenine; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Tryptophan
PubMed: 33482244
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.12.026 -
Nutrients Nov 2022Prebiotic and probiotic supplementation and yogurt consumption (a probiotic food) alter gut microbial diversity, which may influence colorectal carcinogenesis. This... (Review)
Review
Prebiotic and probiotic supplementation and yogurt consumption (a probiotic food) alter gut microbial diversity, which may influence colorectal carcinogenesis. This systematic review evaluates the existing literature on the effect of these nutritional supplements and yogurt consumption on colorectal neoplasia incidence among adults. We systematically identified ten randomized controlled trials and observational studies in adults age ≥ 18 without baseline gastrointestinal disease. Prebiotics included inulin, fructooligosaccharides, galactooligosaccharides, xylooligosaccharides, isomaltooligosaccharides, and β-glucans. Probiotics included bacterial strains of Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, Saccharomyces, Streptococcus, Enterococcus, Bacillus, Pediococcus, Leuconostoc, and Escherichia coli. Synbiotic supplements, a mixture of both prebiotic and probiotic supplements, and yogurt, a commonly consumed dietary source of live microbes, were also included. We defined colorectal neoplasia as colorectal adenomas, sessile serrated polyps, and colorectal cancer (CRC). Overall, findings suggest a moderate decrease in risk of adenoma and CRC for high levels of yogurt consumption compared to low or no consumption. Prebiotic supplementation was not associated with colorectal neoplasia risk. There was some evidence that probiotic supplementation may be associated with lower risk of adenomas but not with CRC incidence. Higher yogurt consumption may be associated with lower incidence of colorectal neoplasia. We found little evidence to suggest that prebiotic or probiotic supplements are associated with significant decreases in CRC occurrence.
Topics: Humans; Prebiotics; Yogurt; Synbiotics; Probiotics; Colorectal Neoplasms
PubMed: 36432622
DOI: 10.3390/nu14224937 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2018Eczema is a common chronic skin condition. Probiotics have been proposed as an effective treatment for eczema; their use is increasing, as numerous clinical trials are... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Eczema is a common chronic skin condition. Probiotics have been proposed as an effective treatment for eczema; their use is increasing, as numerous clinical trials are under way. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2008, which suggested that probiotics may not be an effective treatment for eczema but identified areas in which evidence was lacking.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of probiotics for treating patients of all ages with eczema.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2017: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, the Global Resource of Eczema Trials (GREAT) database, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS). We searched five trials registers and checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We also handsearched a number of conference proceedings. We updated the searches of the main databases in January 2018 and of trials registries in March 2018, but we have not yet incorporated these results into the review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of probiotics (live orally ingested micro-organisms) compared with no treatment, placebo, or other active intervention with no probiotics for the treatment of eczema diagnosed by a doctor.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. We recorded adverse events from the included studies and from a separate adverse events search conducted for the first review. We formally assessed reporting bias by preparing funnel plots, and we performed trial sequential analysis for the first primary outcome - eczema symptoms at the end of active treatment.We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome (in italic font).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 39 randomised controlled trials involving 2599 randomised participants. We included participants of either gender, aged from the first year of life through to 55 years (only six studies assessed adults), who had mild to severe eczema. Trials were undertaken in primary and secondary healthcare settings, mainly in Europe or Asia. Duration of treatment ranged from four weeks to six months, and duration of follow-up after end of treatment ranged from zero to 36 months. We selected no standard dose: researchers used a variety of doses and concentrations of probiotics. The probiotics used were bacteria of the Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria species, which were taken alone or combined with other probiotics, and were given with or without prebiotics. Comparators were no treatment, placebo, and other treatments with no probiotics.For all results described in this abstract, the comparator was no probiotics. Active treatment ranged from six weeks to three months for all of the following results, apart from the investigator-rated eczema severity outcome, for which the upper limit of active treatment was 16 weeks. With regard to score, the higher the score, the more severe were the symptoms. All key results reported in this abstract were measured at the end of active treatment, except for adverse events, which were measured during the active treatment period.Probiotics probably make little or no difference in participant- or parent-rated symptoms of eczema (13 trials; 754 participants): symptom severity on a scale from 0 to 20 was 0.44 points lower after probiotic treatment (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.22 to 0.33; moderate-quality evidence). Trial sequential analysis shows that target sample sizes of 258 and 456, which are necessary to demonstrate a minimum mean difference of -2 and -1.5, respectively, with 90% power, have been exceeded, suggesting that further trials with similar probiotic strains for this outcome at the end of active treatment may be futile.We found no evidence suggesting that probiotics make a difference in QoL for patients with eczema (six studies; 552 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.03, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.42; low-quality evidence) when measured by the participant or the parent using validated disease-specific QoL instruments.Probiotics may slightly reduce investigator-rated eczema severity scores (24 trials; 1596 participants). On a scale of 0 to 103 for total Severity Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD), a score combining investigator-rated eczema severity score and participant scoring for eczema symptoms of itch and sleep loss was 3.91 points lower after probiotic treatment than after no probiotic treatment (95% CI -5.86 to -1.96; low-quality evidence). The minimum clinically important difference for SCORAD has been estimated to be 8.7 points.We noted significant to extreme levels of unexplainable heterogeneity between the results of individual studies. We judged most studies to be at unclear risk of bias; six studies had high attrition bias, and nine were at low risk of bias overall.We found no evidence to show that probiotics make a difference in the risk of adverse events during active treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.54, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.63; seven trials; 402 participants; low-quality evidence). Studies in our review that reported adverse effects described gastrointestinal symptoms.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests that, compared with no probiotic, currently available probiotic strains probably make little or no difference in improving patient-rated eczema symptoms. Probiotics may make little or no difference in QoL for people with eczema nor in investigator-rated eczema severity score (combined with participant scoring for eczema symptoms of itch and sleep loss); for the latter, the observed effect was small and of uncertain clinical significance. Therefore, use of probiotics for the treatment of eczema is currently not evidence-based. This update found no evidence of increased adverse effects with probiotic use during studies, but a separate adverse events search from the first review revealed that probiotic treatment carries a small risk of adverse events.Results show significant, unexplainable heterogeneity between individual trial results. Only a small number of studies measured some outcomes.Future studies should better measure QoL scores and adverse events, and should report on new probiotics. Researchers should also consider studying subgroups of patients (e.g. patients with atopy or food allergies, adults) and standardising doses/concentrations of probiotics given.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Child, Preschool; Eczema; Female; Humans; Infant; Male; Middle Aged; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Symptom Assessment; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 30480774
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006135.pub3