SynthesisFrontiers in nutrition2026
Comparative efficacy of different probiotic strains and preparations for prevention of acute otitis media in children: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Probiotics are established candidates for preventing acute otitis media (AOM) in children, yet existing meta-analyses treat all probiotic interventions as a single class, precluding strain-specific clinical guidance. This network meta-analysis (NMA) compared the efficacy and safety of individual probiotic strains for pediatric AOM prevention. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, WanFang, and CBM from inception to 15 March 2026. Eligible studies were RCTs evaluating probiotic interventions for AOM prevention in children aged 0-18 years. The primary outcome was AOM incidence; secondary outcomes included antibiotic prescription rates, tympanostomy tube placement rates, and adverse events. NMAs were performed using a multivariate random-effects frequentist framework (Stata 17.0). Treatment ranking was estimated using SUCRA values. Results: Eighteen RCTs (reported in 20 publications) enrolling 4,462 children were included, evaluating seven probiotic nodes (SS-K12, SS-24SMB, BB-12, CBA-L74, LGG, Multi-strain, α-Strep) against placebo. For AOM incidence, only CBA-L74 (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.11-0.68; SUCRA = 89.3%) and SS-K12 (OR = 0.44, 95% CI: 0.20-0.94; SUCRA = 71.8%) achieved statistically significant reductions vs. placebo. Sensitivity analyses excluding two high risk-of-bias trials showed that SS-K12's effect was substantially attenuated and lost significance, whereas CBA-L74 remained robustly effective (OR = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.14-0.56). For antibiotic prescription rates, Multi-strain (OR = 0.45; SUCRA = 87.1%) and LGG (OR = 0.69; SUCRA = 65.3%) demonstrated significant reductions; both were superior to SS-K12 in direct pairwise comparisons. No intervention significantly reduced tympanostomy tube placement rates, though Multi-strain showed the most favorable numerical trend (SUCRA = 93.2%). Among exploratory outcomes, SS-K12 and LGG significantly reduced RTI incidence, while CBA-L74 and LGG significantly reduced AGE incidence, with CBA-L74 ranking first for AGE (SUCRA = 95.9%). Conclusions: Probiotic efficacy for AOM prevention is highly strain-specific. CBA-L74 demonstrated the most robust and consistent protection across AOM and gastrointestinal outcomes; Multi-strain combinations and LGG were most effective for antibiotic stewardship. These findings provide the first strain-level evidence base to guide rational probiotic selection in pediatric AOM prevention. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420261360351, identifier CRD420261360351.
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.