A review of the systematic review process and its applicability for use in evaluating evidence for health claims on probiotic foods in the European Union - PubMed (original) (raw)
A review of the systematic review process and its applicability for use in evaluating evidence for health claims on probiotic foods in the European Union
Julie Glanville et al. Nutr J. 2015.
Abstract
This paper addresses the use of systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the strength of evidence for health benefits of probiotic foods, especially relating to health claim substantiation in the European Union. A systematic review is a protocol-driven, transparent and replicable approach, widely accepted in a number of scientific fields, and used by many policy-setting organizations to evaluate the strength of evidence to answer a focused research question. Many systematic reviews have been published on the broad category of probiotics for many different outcomes. Some of these reviews have been criticized for including poor quality studies, pooling heterogeneous study results, and not considering publication bias. Well-designed and -conducted systematic reviews should address such issues. Systematic reviews of probiotics have an additional challenge - rarely addressed in published reviews - in that there must be a scientifically sound basis for combining evidence on different strains, species or genera. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is increasingly adopting the systematic review methodology. It remains to be seen how health claims supported by systematic reviews are evaluated within the EFSA approval process. The EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies deems randomized trials to be the best approach to generating evidence about the effects of foods on health outcomes. They also acknowledge that systematic reviews (with or without meta-analyses) are the best approach to assess the totality of the evidence. It is reasonable to use these well-established methods to assess objectively the strength of evidence for a probiotic health claim. Use of the methods to combine results on more than a single strain or defined blend of strains will require a rationale that the different probiotics are substantively similar, either in identity or in their mode of action.
Similar articles
- The future of Cochrane Neonatal.
Soll RF, Ovelman C, McGuire W. Soll RF, et al. Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834 - Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.
Crider K, Williams J, Qi YP, Gutman J, Yeung L, Mai C, Finkelstain J, Mehta S, Pons-Duran C, Menéndez C, Moraleda C, Rogers L, Daniels K, Green P. Crider K, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36321557 Free PMC article. - What is a health benefit? An evaluation of EFSA opinions on health benefits with reference to probiotics.
Binnendijk KH, Rijkers GT. Binnendijk KH, et al. Benef Microbes. 2013 Sep;4(3):223-30. doi: 10.3920/BM2013.0019. Benef Microbes. 2013. PMID: 23685375 - Evidence Brief: The Quality of Care Provided by Advanced Practice Nurses [Internet].
McCleery E, Christensen V, Peterson K, Humphrey L, Helfand M. McCleery E, et al. Washington (DC): Department of Veterans Affairs (US); 2014 Sep. Washington (DC): Department of Veterans Affairs (US); 2014 Sep. PMID: 27606392 Free Books & Documents. Review. - PASSCLAIM - Synthesis and review of existing processes.
Richardson DP, Affertsholt T, Asp NG, Bruce A, Grossklaus R, Howlett J, Pannemans D, Ross R, Verhagen H, Viechtbauer V. Richardson DP, et al. Eur J Nutr. 2003 Mar;42 Suppl 1:I96-111. doi: 10.1007/s00394-003-1105-z. Eur J Nutr. 2003. PMID: 12664324 Review.
Cited by
- Is There Evidence to Support Probiotic Use for Healthy People?
Merenstein DJ, Tancredi DJ, Karl JP, Krist AH, Lenoir-Wijnkoop I, Reid G, Roos S, Szajewska H, Sanders ME. Merenstein DJ, et al. Adv Nutr. 2024 Aug;15(8):100265. doi: 10.1016/j.advnut.2024.100265. Epub 2024 Jul 6. Adv Nutr. 2024. PMID: 38977065 Free PMC article. Review. - Effectiveness of Psychobiotics in the Treatment of Psychiatric and Cognitive Disorders: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Mosquera FEC, Lizcano Martinez S, Liscano Y. Mosquera FEC, et al. Nutrients. 2024 Apr 30;16(9):1352. doi: 10.3390/nu16091352. Nutrients. 2024. PMID: 38732599 Free PMC article. Review. - Knowledge of Dietitians on Gut Microbiota in Health-An Online Survey of the European Federation of the Associations of Dietitians (EFAD).
Mitsou EK, Katsagoni CN, Janiszewska K. Mitsou EK, et al. Nutrients. 2024 Feb 23;16(5):621. doi: 10.3390/nu16050621. Nutrients. 2024. PMID: 38474750 Free PMC article. - Probiotics for the Prevention of Antibiotic-Associated Diarrhea.
Kopacz K, Phadtare S. Kopacz K, et al. Healthcare (Basel). 2022 Aug 2;10(8):1450. doi: 10.3390/healthcare10081450. Healthcare (Basel). 2022. PMID: 36011108 Free PMC article. Review. - Immunomodulating Effects of Fungal Beta-Glucans: From Traditional Use to Medicine.
van Steenwijk HP, Bast A, de Boer A. van Steenwijk HP, et al. Nutrients. 2021 Apr 17;13(4):1333. doi: 10.3390/nu13041333. Nutrients. 2021. PMID: 33920583 Free PMC article. Review.
References
- Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, Gibson GR, Merenstein DJ, Pot B, et al. Expert consensus document. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;11:506–14. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66. - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources