ReviewNutrition and health2025
Evaluating the scientific evidence to support mental health and well-being claims made on probiotic products.
Review in Nutrition and health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundIncreasing interest in probiotics for mental health has led to products marketed to consumers claiming psychological benefits. This study aimed to identify mental health claims on probiotic supplements and to provide a narrative review of the scientific evidence to support these claims.MethodsProbiotic supplements with mental health claims on the product label were identified. A search of the scientific literature was performed using Google Scholar, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies were included if the primary outcome was mental health or a biomarker of mental health, if they investigated the exact probiotic strain or combination of strains as present in the product, and if the study was a trial of probiotics conducted in either humans or animals. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias.ResultsFourteen probiotic products with mental health claims were identified containing five different strains or strain combinations. Eighteen studies relevant to the products and investigating mental health outcomes met inclusion criteria. Ten studies investigated the same combination of probiotics and provided evidence to support the claims made. Statistically significant results were not universally present for all products.ConclusionThe amount and quality of evidence to support claims of mental health benefits made on probiotic products is variable. The results support the need for a grading system to facilitate informed consumer decision-making when choosing a probiotic supplement to support mental health.
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.