4.2 Article

Association between probiotic supplementation and asthma incidence in infants: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

期刊

JOURNAL OF ASTHMA
卷 57, 期 2, 页码 167-178

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02770903.2018.1561893

关键词

Probiotic; asthma; wheeze; infant; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The increased social and economic burdens for asthma in infants make the prevention of asthma a major public health goal. Probiotics may reduce the risk of asthma in infants. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown mixed efficacy outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of RCTs to investigate whether probiotics are associated with a lower asthma incidence in infants. Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane library, and EMBASE databases were systematically searched from the inception dates to August 2018. RCTs comparing the effects of probiotic supplements with a placebo for asthma or wheeze incidence in infants were included. A meta-analysis was performed to calculate risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using the Mantel-Haenszel statistical method. Results: A total of 19 randomized trials involving 5157 children fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was no significant association of probiotics with risk of asthma (RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.82-1.09]) or wheeze (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.88-1.06]) compared with placebo. Subgroup analysis by asthma risk showed that probiotics significantly reduced wheeze incidence among infants with atopy disease (RR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.42-0.90]), but no significant associations were found in the other subgroup analyses by participants receiving the intervention, timing of intervention, prevention regimen, probiotic organism, duration of intervention, and duration of follow-up. Conclusions: The use of probiotic supplementation compared with placebo was not associated with a lower risk of asthma in infants. These findings do not support recommendation to use probiotics in the prevention of asthma in infants.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据