4.7 Review

Effectiveness of probiotics on the occurrence of infections in older people: systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

AGE AND AGEING
卷 47, 期 4, 页码 527-536

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afy006

关键词

probiotics; aged; aged 80 and over; infection; systematic review; older people

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [2015/03349-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: infectious diseases in older people are associated with higher mortality rates and probiotics have been hypothesised to reduce the occurrence of infection. Objectives: to assess the effectiveness and safety of probiotics in the occurrence of infections in older adults in comparison to placebo. Methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised placebo-controlled trials were conducted on 30 December 2016 using Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and LILACS databases. Efficacy outcomes were: occurrence of infection, quality of life, mortality and mean duration of infection per episode. Safety outcomes were adverse events. Data were analysed using relative risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Relative risk ratios were pooled where more than three estimates were available. Results: fifteen articles were included, with a total of 5,916 participants with a mean age of 75.21 years. The effect of probiotics was not significantly different from that reported for placebo on the occurrence of infection, adverse events, mortality or mean duration of infection episodes (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.08; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.12; RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.72; MD -0.35, 95% CI -1.57 to 0.87, respectively). Conclusion: the current low-quality evidence does not support the use of probiotics for the reduction in the occurrence of infection in older adults, however, the safety outcomes were similar between probiotics and placebo. Further research is required to confirm these findings. PROSPERO: CRD42014013707

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

4.7
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