• Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?

Effects of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Y. Li, Y. Tan, G. Xia, J. Shuai

. 2023 ; 63 (4) : 522-538. [pub] 20210721

Jazyk angličtina Země Spojené státy americké

Typ dokumentu metaanalýza, systematický přehled, časopisecké články

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc23004849

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to summarize the effects of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on insulin resistance (IR), lipid profiles, anthropometric indices, and C-reactive protein (CRP) level for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). We searched 8 databases from their inception until 1st October, 2020. The effect sizes were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Subgroup analyses were undertaken for further identification of effects of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics, based on the following aspects: (1) type of intervention (probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics); (2) study duration (≥ 12 weeks or < 12 weeks); (3) number of probiotic strains (multi strains or single strain); (4) probiotic dose (≥ 2 × 108 colony-forming units [CFU] or < 2 × 108 CFU). A total of 17 eligible RCTs with 1049 participants were included. Results showed that probiotic, prebiotic, and synbiotic intake decreased fasting plasma glucose (SMD, -1.35; 95% CI, -2.22 to -0.49; p = 0.002), fasting insulin (SMD, -0.68; 95% CI, -1.08 to -0.27; p = 0.001), homeostatic model of assessment for IR (SMD, -0.73; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.31; p = 0.001), triglycerides (SMD, -0.85; 95% CI, -1.59 to -0.11; p = 0.024), total cholesterol (SMD, -1.09; 95% CI, -1.98 to -0.21; p = 0.015), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (SMD, -0.84; 95% CI, -1.64 to -0.03; p = 0.041), very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (SMD, -0.44; 95% CI, -0.70 to -0.18; p = 0.001), and increased quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (SMD, 2.00; 95% CI, - 0.79 to 3.22; p = 0.001). However, probiotic, prebiotic, and synbiotic supplements did not affect anthropometric indices, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and CRP levels. Subgroup analysis showed that probiotic or prebiotic might be the optimal choice for ameliorating IR or lipid profiles, respectively. Additionally, the effect was positively related to courses and therapeutical dose. Overall, the meta-analysis demonstrates that probiotic, prebiotic, or synbiotic administration is an effective and safe intervention for modifying IR and lipid profiles.

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc23004849
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20230425171745.0
007      
ta
008      
230418s2023 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1080/10408398.2021.1951155 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)34287081
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Li, Yuling $u Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China $u Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China
245    10
$a Effects of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis / $c Y. Li, Y. Tan, G. Xia, J. Shuai
520    9_
$a This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed to summarize the effects of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics on insulin resistance (IR), lipid profiles, anthropometric indices, and C-reactive protein (CRP) level for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). We searched 8 databases from their inception until 1st October, 2020. The effect sizes were expressed as standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Subgroup analyses were undertaken for further identification of effects of probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics, based on the following aspects: (1) type of intervention (probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics); (2) study duration (≥ 12 weeks or < 12 weeks); (3) number of probiotic strains (multi strains or single strain); (4) probiotic dose (≥ 2 × 108 colony-forming units [CFU] or < 2 × 108 CFU). A total of 17 eligible RCTs with 1049 participants were included. Results showed that probiotic, prebiotic, and synbiotic intake decreased fasting plasma glucose (SMD, -1.35; 95% CI, -2.22 to -0.49; p = 0.002), fasting insulin (SMD, -0.68; 95% CI, -1.08 to -0.27; p = 0.001), homeostatic model of assessment for IR (SMD, -0.73; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.31; p = 0.001), triglycerides (SMD, -0.85; 95% CI, -1.59 to -0.11; p = 0.024), total cholesterol (SMD, -1.09; 95% CI, -1.98 to -0.21; p = 0.015), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (SMD, -0.84; 95% CI, -1.64 to -0.03; p = 0.041), very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (SMD, -0.44; 95% CI, -0.70 to -0.18; p = 0.001), and increased quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (SMD, 2.00; 95% CI, - 0.79 to 3.22; p = 0.001). However, probiotic, prebiotic, and synbiotic supplements did not affect anthropometric indices, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and CRP levels. Subgroup analysis showed that probiotic or prebiotic might be the optimal choice for ameliorating IR or lipid profiles, respectively. Additionally, the effect was positively related to courses and therapeutical dose. Overall, the meta-analysis demonstrates that probiotic, prebiotic, or synbiotic administration is an effective and safe intervention for modifying IR and lipid profiles.
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a synbiotika $7 D058616
650    _2
$a prebiotika $7 D056692
650    12
$a syndrom polycystických ovarií $x metabolismus $7 D011085
650    12
$a probiotika $x terapeutické užití $7 D019936
650    _2
$a triglyceridy $7 D014280
650    12
$a inzulinová rezistence $7 D007333
650    _2
$a HDL-cholesterol $7 D008076
655    _2
$a metaanalýza $7 D017418
655    _2
$a systematický přehled $7 D000078182
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Tan, Yong $u Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China $u Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China
700    1_
$a Xia, Guicheng $u Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China $u Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China
700    1_
$a Shuai, Jiaqi $u Masaryk University, Brno, The Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00001241 $t Critical reviews in food science and nutrition $x 1549-7852 $g Roč. 63, č. 4 (2023), s. 522-538
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34287081 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
990    __
$a 20230418 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20230425171742 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1925128 $s 1191058
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2023 $b 63 $c 4 $d 522-538 $e 20210721 $i 1549-7852 $m Critical reviews in food science and nutriton $n Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr $x MED00001241
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20230418

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...