IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0168785.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Methodological Quality Assessment of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Probiotics in Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Pouchitis

Author

Listed:
  • Jinpei Dong
  • Guigen Teng
  • Tiantong Wei
  • Wen Gao
  • Huahong Wang

Abstract

Background: Probiotics are widely used for the induction and maintenance of remission in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and pouchitis. There are a large number of meta-analyses (MAs)/ systematic reviews (SRs) on this subject, the methodological quality of which has not been evaluated. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality of and summarize the evidence obtained from MAs/SRs of probiotic treatments for IBD and pouchitis patients. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases were searched to identify Chinese and English language MAs/SRs of the use of probiotics for IBD and pouchitis. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. Results: A total of 36 MAs/SRs were evaluated. The AMSTAR scores of the included studies ranged from 1 to 10, and the average score was 5.81. According to the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 4 articles were classified as high quality, 24 articles were classified as moderate quality, and 8 articles were classified as low quality. Most of the MAs/SRs suggested that probiotics had potential benefits for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), but failed to show effectiveness in the induction and maintenance of remission in Crohn’s disease (CD). The probiotic preparation VSL#3 may play a beneficial role in pouchitis. Conclusion: The overall methodological quality of the current MAs/SRs in the field of probiotics for IBD and pouchitis was found to be low to moderate. More MAs/SRs of high quality are required to support using probiotics to treat IBD and pouchitis.

Suggested Citation

  • Jinpei Dong & Guigen Teng & Tiantong Wei & Wen Gao & Huahong Wang, 2016. "Methodological Quality Assessment of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Probiotics in Inflammatory Bowel Disease and Pouchitis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-11, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0168785
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168785
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168785
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0168785&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0168785?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0168785. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.