SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2025
Role of probiotic supplementation in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia among critically ill patients-a critical umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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 gut-lung axis in ARDS: beyond microbial translocation.Respiratory research · 2026Review
- Reappraising traumatic brain injury and ventilator-associated pneumonia through the brain-lung-immune-microbiome axis.Frontiers in neurologyReview
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
Background: In critically ill patients, gut microbiome balance is often disrupted by antibiotics and disease-related stress. Probiotics may strengthen gut barrier function and lower the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), but their effectiveness in mechanically ventilated patients remains unclear. This umbrella review synthesizes evidence from systematic reviews on the association between probiotic therapy and VAP incidence. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) for systematic reviews published from database inception to July 20, 2025. Data were extracted using a standardized form that had been pilot-tested prior to use. Data were synthesized using both narrative and quantitative approaches. The study protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (registration ID: CRD420251034247). Results: This umbrella review included 24 meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 92,711 mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2) tool, the methodological quality varied-a total of 4 were rated critically low, 12 were rated low, 1 was rated moderate, and 9 were rated high. Probiotic supplementation was associated with a reduced risk of VAP [odds ratio (OR) = 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.75; relative risk (RR) = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.69-0.80] and nosocomial infections (OR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.73-0.90; RR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.80-0.88). Probiotics showed modest reductions in intensive care unit (ICU) stay [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -1.30 days, 95% CI: -1.59 to-1.02], overall hospital stay (WMD = -1.29 days, 95% CI: -1.79 to -0.79), duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD = -1.64 days, 95% CI: -2.07 to -1.22), and antibiotic use (WMD = -1.26 days, 95% CI: -2.25 to -0.28). The risk of diarrhea decreased based on OR estimates (OR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.67-0.88), whereas RR estimates did not show a statistically significant difference (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.94-1.01). Probiotic use was associated with a statistically significant reduction in ICU mortality (OR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.79-0.94; RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.90-0.98), whereas hospital mortality was reduced only in RR analyses (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88-0.97) and not in OR Analyses (OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.84-1.01). Conclusion: Probiotics may offer potential benefits for mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients by reducing infections and improving certain clinical outcomes; however, the overall quality of the available evidence remains insufficient to support definitive conclusions. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420251034247, CRD420251034247.
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.