Evidence mapPaperPMID 40433664Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025

A pharmacovigilance study on probiotic preparations based on the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System from 2005 to 2023.

Yitong Wang, Weifu Tan, Xuyang Li, Guangli Yang, Yunxiao Wang, Jing Liao, Aner Lu, Guoqing Zhang, Kuidai Chen, Liling Yang and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
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.

Yitong Wang *Department of Neonatology, Binhaiwan Central Hospital of Dongguan, Dongguan, China.
Weifu Tan *Department of Neonatology, Binhaiwan Central Hospital of Dongguan, Dongguan, China.
Xuyang Li *Department of Neonatology, Binhaiwan Central Hospital of Dongguan, Dongguan, China.
Guangli YangDepartment of Central Laboratory, Binhaiwan Central Hospital of Dongguan, Dongguan, China.
Yunxiao WangDepartment of Neonatology, Binhaiwan Central Hospital of Dongguan, Dongguan, China.
Jing LiaoDepartment of Neonatology, Binhaiwan Central Hospital of Dongguan, Dongguan, China.
Aner LuDepartment of Neonatology, Binhaiwan Central Hospital of Dongguan, Dongguan, China.
Guoqing ZhangDepartment of Neonatology, Binhaiwan Central Hospital of Dongguan, Dongguan, China.
Kuidai ChenDepartment of Neonatology, Binhaiwan Central Hospital of Dongguan, Dongguan, China.
Liling YangDongguan Key Laboratory of Prevention and Treatment of Critical Illness, Binhaiwan Central Hospital of Dongguan, Dongguan, China.
Wei LiDepartment of Neonatology, Binhaiwan Central Hospital of Dongguan, Dongguan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Probiotics are recognized as beneficial foods, but adverse reactions reported by individuals still exist. This study aims to analysis adverse events (AE) related to probiotics from the FAERS database from the first quarter (Q1) of 2005 to the fourth quarter (Q4) of 2023. Methods: The AE data related to probiotic from the 2005 Q1 to the 2023 Q4 were collected. R language was applied to analyze the standardized AE data and three algorithms including the reporting odds ratio (ROR), the proportional reporting ratio (PRR) and the empirical Bayes geometric mean (EBGM) were used to identify AE signals. Results: In this study, 10,698,312 reports were collected from the FAERS database, of which 74 probiotic-related adverse events were reported. About one third of the reported cases were older than 60 years.36.36% of the reported cases required Hospitalization. A total of 285 preference terms (PTS) and 15 system organ classes (SOC) were identified. In the overall analysis, only 9 PTs and 2 SOCs met significant disproportionality for all three algorithms simultaneously. SOCs included Gastrointestinal disorders (N=97, ROR=5.3, PRR=3.84, EBGM=3.84) and Hepatobiliary disorders (N=9, ROR =3.39, PRR=3.32, EBGM=3.32). PTs included Gastrointestinal pain (ROR=77.76, PRR=76.69, EBGM=76.63), Hypophagia (ROR=24.13, PRR=23.88, EBGM=28.88), and Hepatobiliary disorders (N=97, ROR=5.3, PRR=3.84, EBGM=3.84) and Flatulence (ROR=23.75, PRR=23.28, EBGM=23.27) were the top four highest. Meanwhile, s found new unique adverse signals such as Agitation (ROR=12.48, PRR=12.32, EBGM=12.32) and Anxiety (ROR=4.10, PRR=4.04, EBGM=4.04). Additionally, subgroup analyses were performed to identify AE signals based on gender and age. Metabolism and nutrition disorders (N=6, ROR=3.21, PRR=3.04, EBGM=3.04) and Asthenia (N=3, ROR=5.9, PRR=5.71, EBGM=5.71) were unique AE signal for the male group. Conclusion: Although, the risk of adverse reactions arising from the application of probiotics cannot be ignored. However, However, the results of this FAERS-based study continue to support the overall safety of probiotic preparations. It is necessary to pay attention to the potential influence of factors such as gender and age on the effects and adverse reactions of probiotic application in basic research and clinical application.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsPharmacovigilanceProbioticsAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlgorithmsChildChild, PreschoolDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansInfantMaleadverse drug reactionsadverse eventsageFAERSgenderpharmacovigilanceprobiotic

Identifiers

PMID40433664
PMCPMC12106448

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.