SynthesisJournal of health, population, and nutrition2025
Probiotic and synbiotic supplements for osteoporosis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Synthesis in Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 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.
- The role of gut microbiota-immune-endocrine crosstalk in the pathogenesis of osteoporosis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Gut microbiota orchestrates bone homeostasis: a multi-pathway network from intestine to skeleton.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProbiotic/synbiotic, have been proposed as a supplement to improve bone health markers. However, findings evidence remains inconsistent. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of Probiotic/synbiotic supplementation on osteoporosis.
methodsA systematic search was carried out in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to June 2025 to evaluate the efficacy of probiotic or synbiotic supplementation for osteoporosis. Data were pooled using a random-effects model to calculate standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% Confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsTen studies were included in this meta-analysis. Probiotic/synbiotic supplementation significantly decreased PTH levels (SMD = -1.19; 95% CI: -2.13, -0.26; P = 0.012), and increased lumbar spine BMD (SMD = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.01, 1.71; P = 0.047). However, probiotic/synbiotic supplementation did not significantly affect BMD of the total hip (SMD = 0.64; 95% CI: -0.56, 1.83; P = 0.296), C-terminal telopeptide (CTX) (SMD = -0.37; 95% CI: -0.75, 0.02; P = 0.063), osteocalcin (SMD = 0.24; 95% CI: -0.34, 0.82; P = 0.415), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) (SMD = 0.60; 95% CI: -0.61, 1.81; P = 0.334), and osteoprotegerin (SMD = -1.04; 95% CI: -3.19, 1.10; P = 0.340). Begg's test revealed no significant publication bias.
conclusionsThe current meta-analysis revealed that probiotic/synbiotic supplementation beneficial effect on PTH, and lumbar spine BMD. No favorable effect of probiotic/synbiotic supplementation on BMD of the total hip, CTX, osteocalcin, ALP, and osteoprotegerin was observed.
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.