ReviewInternational journal of general medicine2026
Effects of Probiotics in Pregnant Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.
Review in International journal of general medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common pregnancy complication with adverse maternal and neonatal consequences. Probiotics have been proposed as a non-pharmacological intervention, but their effectiveness remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality and reported efficacy evidence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on probiotic supplementation in pregnant women with GDM. Methods: Four electronic databases were searched for English-language SRs/MAs published between 2017 and 2024 that examined probiotic supplementation in women with GDM. Methodological quality was assessed using PRISMA 2020, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS, and reported efficacy outcomes were systematically synthesized. Results: A total of 16 SRs/MAs were included. According to the AMSTAR-2 assessment, four studies were rated as low quality, while the remaining studies were rated very low. The PRISMA assessment showed that 8 of the 27 items had reporting completeness above 80%, whereas items 5, 8, and 22 showed completeness below 60%; at the study level, 12 SRs/MAs achieved overall PRISMA reporting completeness above 80%. The ROBIS scale assessment results showed that all SRs/MAs were rated as low risk of bias in Phase 1, Domain 1, Domain 3, and six items of Domain 4, as well as 12 items in Phase 3. However, in Domain 2, all SRs/MAs were rated as high risk. Regarding efficacy evaluation, probiotic supplementation significantly improved FPG, insulin-related indices (FSI, HOMA-IR, HOMA-B, QUICKI), and lipid profiles (TG, TC, HDL-C, VLDL-C). In addition, probiotics showed effects on markers of inflammation (CRP) and oxidative stress (NO, MDA, GSH, TAC) and indicated benefits in reducing neonatal risks. However, heterogeneity and overlap among primary studies were identified. Conclusion: Probiotic supplementation demonstrates efficacy in improving metabolic biomarkers related to GDM and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Nevertheless, the overall certainty of evidence is limited by suboptimal methodological quality, heterogeneity, and overlap among primary studies.
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.