Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36414567›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2023

Impact of probiotics on muscle mass, muscle strength and lean mass: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Konstantinos Prokopidis, Panagiotis Giannos, Richard Kirwan, Theocharis Ispoglou, Francesco Galli, Oliver C Witard, Konstantinos K Triantafyllidis, Konstantinos S Kechagias, Jordi Morwani-Mangnani, Andrea Ticinesi and 1 more

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

Synthesis in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

71 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Nutrients · 2026
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Nutrients · 2024
    Trial
  16. Efficacy ofNutrients · 2024
    Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Review
  20. Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

Konstantinos ProkopidisDepartment of Musculoskeletal Biology, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6264-9388
Panagiotis GiannosSociety of Meta-research and Biomedical Innovation, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1037-1983
Richard KirwanSchool of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4645-0077
Theocharis IspoglouCarnegie School of Sport, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7608-6512
Francesco GalliDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Lipidomics and Micronutrient Vitamins Laboratory and Human Anatomy Laboratory, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.
Oliver C WitardFaculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Centre for Human and Applied Physiological Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Konstantinos K TriantafyllidisSociety of Meta-research and Biomedical Innovation, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3858-4473
Konstantinos S KechagiasSociety of Meta-research and Biomedical Innovation, London, UK.
Jordi Morwani-MangnaniDepartment of Molecular Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.
Andrea TicinesiDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9171-8592
Masoud IsanejadDepartment of Musculoskeletal Biology, Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Imperial College London · GBUniversity of Liverpool · GBKing's College London · GBLeeds Beckett University · GBLeiden University Medical Center · NLLiverpool John Moores University · GBMusgrove Park Hospital · GBUniversity of Parma · ITUniversity of Perugia · IT

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P020941/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Probiotics have shown potential to counteract sarcopenia, although the extent to which they can influence domains of sarcopenia such as muscle mass and strength in humans is unclear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to explore the impact of probiotic supplementation on muscle mass, total lean mass and muscle strength in human adults. A literature search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted through PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library from inception until June 2022. Eligible RCTs compared the effect of probiotic supplementation versus placebo on muscle and total lean mass and global muscle strength (composite score of all muscle strength outcomes) in adults (>18 years). To evaluate the differences between groups, a meta-analysis was conducted using the random effects inverse-variance model by utilizing standardized mean differences. Twenty-four studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis exploring the effects of probiotics on muscle mass, total lean mass and global muscle strength. Our main analysis (k = 10) revealed that muscle mass was improved following probiotics compared with placebo (SMD: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.10-0.74, I

Indexed as

ProbioticsSarcopeniaAdultHumansMusclesMuscle StrengthRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBifidobacteriumLactobacillusMuscle massMuscle strengthProbioticsSarcopenia

Identifiers

PMID36414567
PMCPMC9891957
OpenAlexW4309681909

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.