SynthesisThe Journal of small animal practice2025
Efficacy of probiotic, prebiotic, synbiotic and postbiotic supplementation on gastrointestinal health in cats: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Journal of small animal practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of aAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- A Review of Probiotic Supplementation and Its Impact on the Health and Well-Being of Domestic Cats.Veterinary sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe clinical efficacy of the use of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics and postbiotics (biotics) in cats is unknown, despite their use in daily practice. The objectives of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of biotic supplementation in treating and preventing gastroenteropathies, and in reducing gastrointestinal signs associated with antibiotics in cats. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review was conducted by searching four databases for publications before August 2, 2024, following a pre-registered protocol. Eligible publications were trials involving healthy cats or those with gastroenteropathies, supplemented with biotics (and an inactive control), studying outcomes such as faecal consistency, faecal microbiota or vomiting. Risk of bias and quality of reports were assessed. Effects were synthesised by meta-analyses and vote counting based on direction of effect. Certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE approach.
resultsTwenty reports were included, presenting unclear or low risk of bias. The evidence did not permit a high-confidence evaluation of the effectiveness of biotics, although five of the seven probiotic trials showed beneficial effects on faecal consistency. Synbiotics presented no clinically relevant effect in reducing antibiotics-associated vomiting, with very low certainty, in a meta-analysis including 32 adult cats. Probiotics significantly reduce the Bacillota/Actinomycetota ratio, with low certainty, in a meta-analysis involving 34 healthy young-adult cats. Following vote counting, probiotics improved immune profile in young cats, and increased butyric acid concentration in healthy cats. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Current data highlight the need for further research, especially focused on at-risk groups and sick cats, before advocating the use of biotic supplementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.