4.7 Article

Meta-analysis: the effects of gut flora modulation using prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics on minimal hepatic encephalopathy

期刊

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 33, 期 6, 页码 662-671

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2010.04574.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

P>Background Minimal hepatic encephalopathy (MHE) is characterised by subtle neurocognitive deficits without overt clinical manifestations. Although several trials have individually evaluated the role of prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics, there is yet no consensus on the management of MHE. Aim To estimate the efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics in MHE in randomised controlled trials. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for published studies in all languages. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined a priori. Pooled relative risk and heterogeneity were estimated as the measures of association. Results Nine studies met our inclusion criteria. Use of prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics significantly reduced the pooled relative risk (RR) of no improvement of MHE (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32-0.50; P < 0.001). Upon subgroup analysis, five studies with lactulose showed significant reduction of risk of no improvement of MHE (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.24-0.47; P < 0.0001) with no inter-trial heterogeneity. In two trials each of probiotics and synbiotics, their use was associated with significant beneficial effects (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26-0.65; P < 0.0001 and RR of 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.80; P = 0.004 respectively). There were no major adverse events though probiotics and synbiotics were better tolerated than lactulose. Conclusions The use of prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics was associated with significant improvement in minimal hepatic encephalopathy. Among individual agents, lactulose appears to have the most beneficial effect, followed closely by probiotics and synbiotics.

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