Hyppää sisältöön
    • Suomeksi
    • In English
  • Suomeksi
  • In English
  • Kirjaudu
Näytä aineisto 
  •   Etusivu
  • 3. UTUCris-artikkelit
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet
  • Näytä aineisto
  •   Etusivu
  • 3. UTUCris-artikkelit
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet
  • Näytä aineisto
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Recommendations to Improve Quality of Probiotic Systematic Reviews With Meta-Analyses

McFarland Lynne V.; Hecht Gail; Sanders Mary E.; Goff Debra A.; Goldstein Ellie J. C.; Hill Colin; Johnson Stuart; Kashi Maryam R.; Kullar Ravina; Marco Maria L.; Merenstein Daniel J.; Millette Mathieu; Preidis Geoffrey A.; Quigley Eamonn M. M.; Reid Gregor; Salminen Seppo; Sniffen Jason C.; Sokol Harry; Szajewska Hania; Tancredi Daniel J.; Woolard Kristin

Recommendations to Improve Quality of Probiotic Systematic Reviews With Meta-Analyses

McFarland Lynne V.
Hecht Gail
Sanders Mary E.
Goff Debra A.
Goldstein Ellie J. C.
Hill Colin
Johnson Stuart
Kashi Maryam R.
Kullar Ravina
Marco Maria L.
Merenstein Daniel J.
Millette Mathieu
Preidis Geoffrey A.
Quigley Eamonn M. M.
Reid Gregor
Salminen Seppo
Sniffen Jason C.
Sokol Harry
Szajewska Hania
Tancredi Daniel J.
Woolard Kristin
Katso/Avaa
mcfarland_2023_cs_230009_1701378890.97813.pdf (1.113Mb)
Lataukset: 

JAMA Network
doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.46872
URI
https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.46872
Näytä kaikki kuvailutiedot
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on:
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2025082789486
Tiivistelmä
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses often report conflicting results when assessing evidence for probiotic efficacy, partially because of the lack of understanding of the unique features of probiotic trials. As a consequence, clinical decisions on the use of probiotics have been confusing.To provide recommendations to improve the quality and consistency of systematic reviews with meta-analyses on probiotics, so evidence-based clinical decisions can be made with more clarity.For this consensus statement, an updated literature review was conducted (January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2022) to supplement a previously published 2018 literature search to identify areas where probiotic systematic reviews with meta-analyses might be improved. An expert panel of 21 scientists and physicians with experience on writing and reviewing probiotic reviews and meta-analyses was convened and used a modified Delphi method to develop recommendations for future probiotic reviews.A total of 206 systematic reviews with meta-analysis components on probiotics were screened and representative examples discussed to determine areas for improvement. The expert panel initially identified 36 items that were inconsistently reported or were considered important to consider in probiotic meta-analyses. Of these, a consensus was reached for 9 recommendations to improve the quality of future probiotic meta-analyses.In this study, the expert panel reached a consensus on 9 recommendations that should promote improved reporting of probiotic systematic reviews with meta-analyses and, thereby, assist in clinical decisions regarding the use of probiotics.
Kokoelmat
  • Rinnakkaistallenteet [29335]

Turun yliopiston kirjasto | Turun yliopisto
julkaisut@utu.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste
 

 

Tämä kokoelma

JulkaisuajatTekijätNimekkeetAsiasanatTiedekuntaLaitosOppiaineYhteisöt ja kokoelmat

Omat tiedot

Kirjaudu sisäänRekisteröidy

Turun yliopiston kirjasto | Turun yliopisto
julkaisut@utu.fi | Tietosuoja | Saavutettavuusseloste