A2 Refereed review article in a scientific journal
Recommendations to Improve Quality of Probiotic Systematic Reviews With Meta-Analyses
Authors: McFarland Lynne V., Hecht Gail, Sanders Mary E., Goff Debra A., Goldstein Ellie J. C., Hill Colin, Johnson Stuart, Kashi Maryam R., Kullar Ravina, Marco Maria L., Merenstein Daniel J., Millette Mathieu, Preidis Geoffrey A., Quigley Eamonn M. M., Reid Gregor, Salminen Seppo, Sniffen Jason C., Sokol Harry, Szajewska Hania, Tancredi Daniel J., Woolard Kristin
Publisher: JAMA Network
Publication year: 2023
Journal: JAMA Network Open
Journal name in source: JAMA Network Open
Article number: 2346872
Volume: 6
Issue: 12
ISSN: 2574-3805
eISSN: 2574-3805
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.46872
Web address : https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.46872
Self-archived copy’s web address: https://research.utu.fi/converis/portal/detail/Publication/380708527
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses often report conflicting results when assessing evidence for probiotic efficacy, partially because of the lack of understanding of the unique features of probiotic trials. As a consequence, clinical decisions on the use of probiotics have been confusing.To provide recommendations to improve the quality and consistency of systematic reviews with meta-analyses on probiotics, so evidence-based clinical decisions can be made with more clarity.For this consensus statement, an updated literature review was conducted (January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2022) to supplement a previously published 2018 literature search to identify areas where probiotic systematic reviews with meta-analyses might be improved. An expert panel of 21 scientists and physicians with experience on writing and reviewing probiotic reviews and meta-analyses was convened and used a modified Delphi method to develop recommendations for future probiotic reviews.A total of 206 systematic reviews with meta-analysis components on probiotics were screened and representative examples discussed to determine areas for improvement. The expert panel initially identified 36 items that were inconsistently reported or were considered important to consider in probiotic meta-analyses. Of these, a consensus was reached for 9 recommendations to improve the quality of future probiotic meta-analyses.In this study, the expert panel reached a consensus on 9 recommendations that should promote improved reporting of probiotic systematic reviews with meta-analyses and, thereby, assist in clinical decisions regarding the use of probiotics.
Downloadable publication This is an electronic reprint of the original article. |  |
