4.4 Article

Effects of probiotics for the treatment of atopic dermatitis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

期刊

ANNALS OF ALLERGY ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY
卷 113, 期 2, 页码 217-226

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2014.05.021

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The effects of probiotics on the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) are inconclusive. Objective: To determine the clinical effect of probiotics in the management of AD overall and in different age groups. Methods: A comprehensive search of databases through December 2013 was performed. For this meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials measuring the treatment effects of probiotics or synbiotics in patients diagnosed with AD were included. The primary outcome was a difference in Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) values between the treatment and placebo groups overall and in different age populations. Results: Twenty-five randomized controlled trials (n = 1,599) were available for this meta-analysis. Significant differences in SCORAD values favoring probiotics over the control were observed overall (mean -4.51, 95% confidence interval -6.78 to -2.24), in children 1 to 18 years old (-5.74, 95% confidence interval -7.27 to -4.20), and in adults (-8.26, 95% confidence interval -13.28 to -3.25). However, the effectiveness of probiotics in infants (<1 year old) with AD was not proved. The effect of synbiotic use was not significantly different from that of probiotic use. Treatment with a mixture of different bacterial species or of Lactobacillus species showed greater benefit than did treatment with Bifidobacterium species alone. Conclusion: The overall result of this meta-analysis suggests that probiotics could be an option for the treatment of AD, especially for moderate to severe AD in children and adults. However, no evidence was found supporting the beneficial role of probiotics in infants. (C) 2014 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.4
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