ReviewDiseases (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Safety and Effectiveness of Probiotic Preparations: A Contemporary Review.
Review in Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 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
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesProbiotic preparations have attracted increasing attention because of their potential to modulate the gut microbiota and improve health outcomes in a wide range of gastrointestinal and extraintestinal diseases. However, their efficacy and safety are strain-specific and remain inconsistent across many clinical indications. The aim of this review was to evaluate current evidence regarding the efficacy, safety, mechanisms of action, and clinical applications of probiotic preparations.
methodsA narrative literature review was conducted using the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases to identify publications addressing the efficacy, safety, and clinical applications of probiotic preparations. The literature search was last updated in July 2026. No publication-year restrictions were applied; the studies included in this review were published between 2000 and 2026. Priority was given to systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, international clinical practice guidelines, and mechanistic studies.
resultsThe reviewed evidence indicates that probiotics may contribute to intestinal homeostasis through modulation of the gut microbiota, enhancement of intestinal barrier function, and regulation of immune responses. The strongest evidence supports the use of selected probiotic strains for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhea, whereas evidence for the prevention of necrotizing enterocolitis is generally favorable but depends on the specific probiotic preparation, product quality, and clinical setting. Evidence for most other gastrointestinal and extraintestinal disorders remains heterogeneous and strain-specific. Although probiotics generally exhibit a favorable safety profile, rare infectious complications have been reported in high-risk patients.
conclusionsCurrent evidence indicates that the efficacy and safety of probiotics depend on the specific strain, clinical indication, and patient characteristics. Further high-quality, strain-specific clinical studies are needed to optimize their use in medical practice.
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.