Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35893922›Full record

SynthesisNutrients2022

Probiotics/Synbiotics to Reduce Infectious Complications after Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

Julie Veziant, Mathilde Bonnet, Bob V Occean, Chadly Dziri, Bruno Pereira, Karem Slim

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nutrients, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Julie VeziantDepartment of Digestive and Oncological Surgery, University Hospital Lille, 59000 Lille, France.ORCID 0000-0001-5247-461X
Mathilde BonnetM2iSH UMR 1071 Inserm/Clermont Auvergne University, USC-INRAE 2018, CRNH, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3629-7267
Bob V OcceanDepartment of Statistics, University Hospital, 30000 Nîmes, France.ORCID 0000-0003-4335-7862
Chadly DziriHonoris Medical Simulation Center, Tunis 1000, Tunisia.ORCID 0000-0003-2779-0930
Bruno PereiraDepartment of Statistics, University Hospital CHU Clermont-Ferrand, 63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3778-7161
Karem SlimThe Francophone Group for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery, GRACE, 63110 Beaumont, France.ORCID 0000-0002-1527-4691
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Clermont-Ferrand · FRInserm · FRMediterranean School of Business · TNUniversité de Nîmes · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to assess to what extent probiotics/synbiotics reduce infectious complications after colorectal surgery and whether probiotics or synbiotics should be considered as perioperative measures preventing or reducing infectious complications after CRS and should be included in enhanced recovery programmes (ERP). Secondary aims were to answer practical questions precisely on the best formulation and the type and timing of probiotics or synbiotics in CRS.

methodThis systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomised trials comparing perioperative probiotics/synbiotics with a placebo or standard care in elective colorectal surgery. Exclusion criteria were non-randomised trials. Overall infectious complications and surgical site infections (SSIs including both deep abdominal infections and wound (skin or under the skin) infections) were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were pulmonary and urinary infections, wound infections, and anastomotic leaks. The databases consulted were Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Clinical Trials Register. Risk of bias was assessed according to the GRADE approach. The analysis calculated the random effects estimates risk ratio (RR) for each outcome.

results21 trials were included; 15 evaluated probiotics, and 6 evaluated synbiotics. There were significantly fewer infectious complications (risk ratio (RR) 0.59 [0.47-0.75], I

conclusionsBased on the finding of this study, probiotics/synbiotics reduce infectious complications after colorectal surgery. The effect size was more pronounced for pulmonary and urinary infections. From a practical aspect, some of the questions related to formulations and duration of probiotics or synbiotics need to be answered before including them definitively in enhanced recovery after colorectal surgery programmes.

Indexed as

Colorectal SurgeryProbioticsSynbioticsUrinary Tract InfectionsAnastomotic LeakHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurgical Wound Infectioncolorectalmeta-analysispostoperative complicationsprobioticssurgerysynbiotics

Identifiers

PMID35893922
PMCPMC9332115
OpenAlexW4288069097

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.