This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
It is curious this reversion of Zefr rv preliminary research & conjecture; WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR, which has modify the conclusions of studies performed to date.
There was not any primary source nor original work nor conjecture. Let's take a look at the 5 "primary" sources that supported the text:
Also, Zefr did not consider the page of redirection created by Doc James, which now has no sense: [1]ç
Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 03:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
A listing of proposed beneficial effects of probiotics was presented in an excellent 2015 review article. I propose including the following extensive quotation from the article (rights are CCBY) in order to provide comprehensive up to date information as well as current status of a wide range of proposed beneficial effects. In fact, I don't think any are close to being conclusively proven beyond the first three. Appropriately-sized controlled studies in this area are extremely difficult and expensive.
"Presumed health benefits of probiotics include reducing harmful organisms in the intestine, producing antimicrobial factors, and stimulating the body’s immune response. Some of the beneficial effects of probiotics (e.g., lowering of cholesterol level) are yet to be substantiated by well-controlled clinical trials. However, there are a growing number of studies providing data on effects of probiotic bacteria on the human immune system and on microflora of the GIT (gastrointestinal immune system). Increasingly, reports of the human/animal microbiome playing a central role in other key aspects of health functionality are emerging, including beneficial impacts on the treatment of metabolic disorders, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes, improvement of bowel function in patients with colorectal cancer, potential cognitive, and mood-enhancing benefits, antidepressant, and anxiolytic (antianxiety) activity.” Varankovich NV, Nickerson MT, Korber DR. Probiotic-based strategies for therapeutic and prophylactic use against multiple gastrointestinal diseases. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2015;6:685. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2015.00685.
As for the existing paragraph:"Commonly claimed benefits of probiotics include the decrease of potentially pathogenic gastrointestinal microorganisms, the reduction of gastrointestinal discomfort, the strengthening of the immune system, the improvement of the skin's function, the improvement of bowel regularity, the strengthening of the resistance to cedar pollen allergens, the decrease in body pathogens, the reduction of flatulence and bloating, the protection of DNA, the protection of proteins and lipids fromoxidative damage, and the maintaining of individual intestinal microbiota in subjects receiving antibiotic treatment.[citation needed]"I propose to keep all the claims (with some edits in and out) but change the phraseology to something like, "Other proposed benefits .... have not yet been substantiated and await further study."
In short, I feel there is room in the article for the mention of claims, as well as benefits supported by research and those benefits that are currently receiving increased amounts of notice in scientific publications.
Please let me know what you think - in a week or so I'll implement this. McortNGHH ( talk) 11:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand you have some kind of troll war going on here over the content of this article, but the heading "Strains" is in no way "more accurate title, and neutral", as the section has nothing to do with bacterial strains at all, it does not mention a single species. It seems clear that the data on the strains has been moved into a different section. I am therefore undoing this edit. If you wish to have a different kind of heading here be my guest, but "Strains" makes no sense. -- DustWolf ( talk) 11:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The article this sentence cites cites a 1999 source for the "very little evidence" claim - I could find ten times as many claims of proven effectiveness from more recent studies. Must this statement stay if the original source is 15 years old ( WP:MEDDATE)? Most of the subsections below this statement seem to contradict it.
Also: " Through 2012, however, in all cases proposed as health claims to the European Food Safety Authority, the scientific evidence remains insufficient to prove a cause and effect relationship between consumption of probiotic products and any health benefit." The article cited reads like a blog, and the author doesn't cite a single source - it's a rant of his "ideas" regarding probiotics and why every decent-sounding study is apparently wrong. Like above, there's a citation, but it's not a good one ( WP:MEDRS). Pcwendland ( talk) 16:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
How is this for evidence? http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/11/04/science.aac4255.abstract Willski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.228.232 ( talk) 13:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC) In fact there are dozens of papers including a number of RCTs that show efficacy for specific GI indications, chiefly IBS and the like. This wikipedia article is out-of-touch with current research and is actually quite misleading.
I would like to second the proposed removal of this statement. To echo what has been stated, the footnotes in these sources in some instances are a decade old. The implication that pro-biotics provide little to no health benefits is not in line with current research. Thus, I as well propose its removal. Also, it appears certain sources on this page should be defined as unreliable sources, as per verbiage, is indicative of conspiracy-like bias, ie; dubbing pro-biotics "quackery" in its relation to disease and health.
Attention can be turned to only three of what could be amplified to hundreds of articles discussing health benefits. [1] [2] [3] Siqa ( talk) 19:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Alexbrn, this is not a matter of which source is 'better' than another. As can be prostrated with current scientific findings, the claim "There is very little evidence to support claims that probiotic dietary supplements have any health benefits," no longer holds true. Your, as well as others, quickness to defend such a claim would lead one to believe that what has been demanded is an uneven burden of proof on behalf of those in favor of its removal.
To defend such pieces of literature that utilize papers from 1992 (World Health Organization (1992) Basic Documents, 39th ed. Geneva: WHO.) and on only begs the question, how does one then come to the conclusion that such literature is deemed a "reliable" source? From a neutral standpoint, this should be labeled an argument by selective observation and incomplete evidence (cherry picking). Thus, consensus should favor the current scientific literature, a few examples amongst a mountain that are far more recent and in line with what is being published virtually daily. You would be hard-pressed to find current literature with references to sources as current as those I myself can provide.
However, before I begin editing and removing such claims, I will gladly await and invite the commentary of others on the replacement of this claim. Siqa ( talk) 02:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello again, to further this discussion i've reached out to the CBER for comment. However, I did stumble upon this [4]. I believe it only to be fair that certain statements such as this, "An example of an LBP, for the purposes of this document, would be one or more strains of lactobacilli administered orally to treat patients with ulcerative colitis, or administered vaginally to prevent bacterial vaginosis." The key-words to be pointed out are "an example," as just one or two out of what can be multiplied into many. As has been repeated, should such the unfounded claim remain, it should reflect the current clinical data being published nigh daily, not the opinions of referenced material nearly a decade old. Siqa ( talk) 19:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
References
Based on this discussion I have added some dates into all the "as of right now" claims, to alert the reader to the fact that the well sourced information may be out of date. All the dates have been aligned to the cite date of the sources relating to that section. I've found an "as of 2016", which is unsupported by sources and I've thus removed. Added an out of date banner to "EFSA and FDA scientific reviews", the contens of which, especially in regard to the european institution may be entirely incorrect due to out of date information.
This should be good until someone comes along with any WP:MEDRS sources which give us some more up-to-date information. -- DustWolf ( talk) 11:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
The following ref:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)is from a journal published by MDPI, and if you read our article about this publisher you will learn that they are right on the edge of predator and all the bad practices that come with that. And this paper is such a mess. Look at the five papers they included. Look at their conclusions. And yeah, look at the publisher and throw this out the window. Oy. Jytdog ( talk) 14:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Text supported by Ref #7 -to an FDA Warning Letter, which by the way, the link no longer functions - misrepresents the nature of such Warning Letters. With rare exceptions, the U.S. FDA does not allow disease prevention or treatment claims on product labels or website content EVEN IF TRUE. The exception is if a dossier is submitted to the FDA, in which case an acceptance of the evidence in the dossier will result in FDA approval of a health claim or qualified health claim (QHC). The latter term does not mean that the claim qualified. Instead, it means that the evidence was not strong, and claims on the label have to use the exact FDA wording based on the quality of the evidence.
Example of a QHC "One small study suggests that chromium picolinate may reduce the risk of insulin resistance, and therefore possibly may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. FDA concludes, however, that the existence of such a relationship between chromium picolinate and either insulin resistance or type 2 diabetes is highly uncertain." Companies selling chromium picolinate may chose to make no label claim, use only Structure:Function vocabulary (Chromium picolinate may help maintain healthy blood sugar levels), or use the exact FDA QHC wording. If new stronger evidence is published, the FDA can be petitioned to reconsider, but until it does, only the approved QHC applies.
For this reason I have removed the FDA Warning Letter as a reference in support of probiotics not having government approval, and also the text in two locations depending only on this reference. Please discuss here before deciding to revert my changes. I added text in Labeling to explain how a company can sell a probiotic product in the U.S. even if science evidence is not at consensus. This probably needs a citation to the FDA position on Structure:Function claims. David notMD ( talk) 12:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Z - Yes, the Dannon settlement you added was the beginning of realization that class action lawsuits could be profitably brought against dietary supplement companies. Dannon lost not because there was no health benefit, but because the advertisements did not clearly state that the claimed benefits were from a trial in which women consumed two servings a day every day. David notMD ( talk) 20:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The lede currently offers no examples of probiotic foods, or the efficacy of foods vs. supplements. I attempted to add examples, which are already cited in the article. Bod ( talk) 18:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Here's a good article by Aaron Carroll, who is also a columnist at JAMA, a professor at U. Indiana medical school, and author of many peer-reviewed articles on evidence-based medicine. The NYT isn't a WP:MEDRS for this purpose, but Carroll reviews and links to the current meta-analyses and other evidence for probiotics. You can use this as a bibliography of the latest high-quality evidence, and replace the older, poor-quality studies with the latest studies here. Caroll is particularly good at explaining the difference between high-quality studies and reviews and low-quality, small, uncontrolled studies, which some people in these comments seem to have difficulty doing. I'm excerpting this from a much longer article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/upshot/the-problem-with-probiotics.html
The New Health Care
The Problem With Probiotics
There are potential harms as well as benefits, and a lot of wishful thinking and imprecision in the marketing of products containing them.
Aaron E. Carroll
New York Times
Oct. 22, 2018
In a recent article in JAMA Internal Medicine, Pieter Cohen, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, urges us to consider the harms as well as the benefits. Among immune-compromised individuals, for instance, probiotics can lead to infections....
Given all of this, what are the benefits? The most obvious use of probiotics would be in the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders, given that they are focused on gut health. There have been many studies in this domain, so many that early this year the journal Nutrition published a systematic review of systematic reviews on the subject....
The takeaway: Certain strains were found useful in preventing diarrhea among children being prescribed antibiotics. A 2013 review showed that after antibiotic use, probiotics help prevent Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. A review focused on acute infectious diarrhea found a benefit, again for certain strains of bacteria at controlled doses. There’s also evidence that they may help prevent necrotizing enterocolitis (a serious gastrointestinal condition) and death in preterm infants....
Those somewhat promising results — for very specific uses of very specific strains of bacteria in very specific instances — are just about all the “positive” results you can find....
Probiotics didn’t show a significant benefit for chronic diarrhea. Three reviews looked at how probiotics might improve Crohn’s disease, and none could find sufficient evidence to recommend their use. Four more reviews looked at ulcerative colitis, and similarly declared that we don’t have the data to show that they work. The same was true for the treatment of liver disease....
Reviews show that there is insufficient evidence to recommend their use to treat or prevent eczema, preterm labor, gestational diabetes, bacterial vaginosis, allergic diseases or urinary tract infections....
Reviews looking at the treatment or prevention of vulvovaginal candidiasis in women, pneumonia in patients hooked up to respirators, and colds in otherwise healthy people show some positive results. But the authors note that the studies are almost all of low quality, small in size, and often funded by companies with significant conflicts of interest....
Individual studies are similarly disappointing for probiotics. One examining obesity found limited effects. Another showed they don’t prevent cavities in teeth. They don’t help prevent infant colic, either....
-- Nbauman ( talk) 17:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
When good secondary sources (or at least, good primary sources such as large RCTs) become available, a section on depression and probiotics should probably be started. So far, only small primary studies seem to be available, e.g.:
Zazpot ( talk) 14:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study. (This is moot at the moment, anyhow, as no large RCTs seem to have been carried out yet on this particular subtopic, even though it does seem a popular research area.) Sorry for not being clearer in my first message. Zazpot ( talk) 23:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
"Global consumption" should be it's own heading, not a sub heading of "side effects". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.163.145 ( talk) 15:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
It is curious this reversion of Zefr rv preliminary research & conjecture; WP:PRIMARY, WP:OR, which has modify the conclusions of studies performed to date.
There was not any primary source nor original work nor conjecture. Let's take a look at the 5 "primary" sources that supported the text:
Also, Zefr did not consider the page of redirection created by Doc James, which now has no sense: [1]ç
Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 03:16, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
A listing of proposed beneficial effects of probiotics was presented in an excellent 2015 review article. I propose including the following extensive quotation from the article (rights are CCBY) in order to provide comprehensive up to date information as well as current status of a wide range of proposed beneficial effects. In fact, I don't think any are close to being conclusively proven beyond the first three. Appropriately-sized controlled studies in this area are extremely difficult and expensive.
"Presumed health benefits of probiotics include reducing harmful organisms in the intestine, producing antimicrobial factors, and stimulating the body’s immune response. Some of the beneficial effects of probiotics (e.g., lowering of cholesterol level) are yet to be substantiated by well-controlled clinical trials. However, there are a growing number of studies providing data on effects of probiotic bacteria on the human immune system and on microflora of the GIT (gastrointestinal immune system). Increasingly, reports of the human/animal microbiome playing a central role in other key aspects of health functionality are emerging, including beneficial impacts on the treatment of metabolic disorders, such as obesity and type 2 diabetes, improvement of bowel function in patients with colorectal cancer, potential cognitive, and mood-enhancing benefits, antidepressant, and anxiolytic (antianxiety) activity.” Varankovich NV, Nickerson MT, Korber DR. Probiotic-based strategies for therapeutic and prophylactic use against multiple gastrointestinal diseases. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2015;6:685. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2015.00685.
As for the existing paragraph:"Commonly claimed benefits of probiotics include the decrease of potentially pathogenic gastrointestinal microorganisms, the reduction of gastrointestinal discomfort, the strengthening of the immune system, the improvement of the skin's function, the improvement of bowel regularity, the strengthening of the resistance to cedar pollen allergens, the decrease in body pathogens, the reduction of flatulence and bloating, the protection of DNA, the protection of proteins and lipids fromoxidative damage, and the maintaining of individual intestinal microbiota in subjects receiving antibiotic treatment.[citation needed]"I propose to keep all the claims (with some edits in and out) but change the phraseology to something like, "Other proposed benefits .... have not yet been substantiated and await further study."
In short, I feel there is room in the article for the mention of claims, as well as benefits supported by research and those benefits that are currently receiving increased amounts of notice in scientific publications.
Please let me know what you think - in a week or so I'll implement this. McortNGHH ( talk) 11:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand you have some kind of troll war going on here over the content of this article, but the heading "Strains" is in no way "more accurate title, and neutral", as the section has nothing to do with bacterial strains at all, it does not mention a single species. It seems clear that the data on the strains has been moved into a different section. I am therefore undoing this edit. If you wish to have a different kind of heading here be my guest, but "Strains" makes no sense. -- DustWolf ( talk) 11:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The article this sentence cites cites a 1999 source for the "very little evidence" claim - I could find ten times as many claims of proven effectiveness from more recent studies. Must this statement stay if the original source is 15 years old ( WP:MEDDATE)? Most of the subsections below this statement seem to contradict it.
Also: " Through 2012, however, in all cases proposed as health claims to the European Food Safety Authority, the scientific evidence remains insufficient to prove a cause and effect relationship between consumption of probiotic products and any health benefit." The article cited reads like a blog, and the author doesn't cite a single source - it's a rant of his "ideas" regarding probiotics and why every decent-sounding study is apparently wrong. Like above, there's a citation, but it's not a good one ( WP:MEDRS). Pcwendland ( talk) 16:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
How is this for evidence? http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/11/04/science.aac4255.abstract Willski — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.228.232 ( talk) 13:32, 8 November 2015 (UTC) In fact there are dozens of papers including a number of RCTs that show efficacy for specific GI indications, chiefly IBS and the like. This wikipedia article is out-of-touch with current research and is actually quite misleading.
I would like to second the proposed removal of this statement. To echo what has been stated, the footnotes in these sources in some instances are a decade old. The implication that pro-biotics provide little to no health benefits is not in line with current research. Thus, I as well propose its removal. Also, it appears certain sources on this page should be defined as unreliable sources, as per verbiage, is indicative of conspiracy-like bias, ie; dubbing pro-biotics "quackery" in its relation to disease and health.
Attention can be turned to only three of what could be amplified to hundreds of articles discussing health benefits. [1] [2] [3] Siqa ( talk) 19:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Alexbrn, this is not a matter of which source is 'better' than another. As can be prostrated with current scientific findings, the claim "There is very little evidence to support claims that probiotic dietary supplements have any health benefits," no longer holds true. Your, as well as others, quickness to defend such a claim would lead one to believe that what has been demanded is an uneven burden of proof on behalf of those in favor of its removal.
To defend such pieces of literature that utilize papers from 1992 (World Health Organization (1992) Basic Documents, 39th ed. Geneva: WHO.) and on only begs the question, how does one then come to the conclusion that such literature is deemed a "reliable" source? From a neutral standpoint, this should be labeled an argument by selective observation and incomplete evidence (cherry picking). Thus, consensus should favor the current scientific literature, a few examples amongst a mountain that are far more recent and in line with what is being published virtually daily. You would be hard-pressed to find current literature with references to sources as current as those I myself can provide.
However, before I begin editing and removing such claims, I will gladly await and invite the commentary of others on the replacement of this claim. Siqa ( talk) 02:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello again, to further this discussion i've reached out to the CBER for comment. However, I did stumble upon this [4]. I believe it only to be fair that certain statements such as this, "An example of an LBP, for the purposes of this document, would be one or more strains of lactobacilli administered orally to treat patients with ulcerative colitis, or administered vaginally to prevent bacterial vaginosis." The key-words to be pointed out are "an example," as just one or two out of what can be multiplied into many. As has been repeated, should such the unfounded claim remain, it should reflect the current clinical data being published nigh daily, not the opinions of referenced material nearly a decade old. Siqa ( talk) 19:15, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
References
Based on this discussion I have added some dates into all the "as of right now" claims, to alert the reader to the fact that the well sourced information may be out of date. All the dates have been aligned to the cite date of the sources relating to that section. I've found an "as of 2016", which is unsupported by sources and I've thus removed. Added an out of date banner to "EFSA and FDA scientific reviews", the contens of which, especially in regard to the european institution may be entirely incorrect due to out of date information.
This should be good until someone comes along with any WP:MEDRS sources which give us some more up-to-date information. -- DustWolf ( talk) 11:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
The following ref:
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)is from a journal published by MDPI, and if you read our article about this publisher you will learn that they are right on the edge of predator and all the bad practices that come with that. And this paper is such a mess. Look at the five papers they included. Look at their conclusions. And yeah, look at the publisher and throw this out the window. Oy. Jytdog ( talk) 14:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Text supported by Ref #7 -to an FDA Warning Letter, which by the way, the link no longer functions - misrepresents the nature of such Warning Letters. With rare exceptions, the U.S. FDA does not allow disease prevention or treatment claims on product labels or website content EVEN IF TRUE. The exception is if a dossier is submitted to the FDA, in which case an acceptance of the evidence in the dossier will result in FDA approval of a health claim or qualified health claim (QHC). The latter term does not mean that the claim qualified. Instead, it means that the evidence was not strong, and claims on the label have to use the exact FDA wording based on the quality of the evidence.
Example of a QHC "One small study suggests that chromium picolinate may reduce the risk of insulin resistance, and therefore possibly may reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes. FDA concludes, however, that the existence of such a relationship between chromium picolinate and either insulin resistance or type 2 diabetes is highly uncertain." Companies selling chromium picolinate may chose to make no label claim, use only Structure:Function vocabulary (Chromium picolinate may help maintain healthy blood sugar levels), or use the exact FDA QHC wording. If new stronger evidence is published, the FDA can be petitioned to reconsider, but until it does, only the approved QHC applies.
For this reason I have removed the FDA Warning Letter as a reference in support of probiotics not having government approval, and also the text in two locations depending only on this reference. Please discuss here before deciding to revert my changes. I added text in Labeling to explain how a company can sell a probiotic product in the U.S. even if science evidence is not at consensus. This probably needs a citation to the FDA position on Structure:Function claims. David notMD ( talk) 12:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Z - Yes, the Dannon settlement you added was the beginning of realization that class action lawsuits could be profitably brought against dietary supplement companies. Dannon lost not because there was no health benefit, but because the advertisements did not clearly state that the claimed benefits were from a trial in which women consumed two servings a day every day. David notMD ( talk) 20:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
The lede currently offers no examples of probiotic foods, or the efficacy of foods vs. supplements. I attempted to add examples, which are already cited in the article. Bod ( talk) 18:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Here's a good article by Aaron Carroll, who is also a columnist at JAMA, a professor at U. Indiana medical school, and author of many peer-reviewed articles on evidence-based medicine. The NYT isn't a WP:MEDRS for this purpose, but Carroll reviews and links to the current meta-analyses and other evidence for probiotics. You can use this as a bibliography of the latest high-quality evidence, and replace the older, poor-quality studies with the latest studies here. Caroll is particularly good at explaining the difference between high-quality studies and reviews and low-quality, small, uncontrolled studies, which some people in these comments seem to have difficulty doing. I'm excerpting this from a much longer article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/upshot/the-problem-with-probiotics.html
The New Health Care
The Problem With Probiotics
There are potential harms as well as benefits, and a lot of wishful thinking and imprecision in the marketing of products containing them.
Aaron E. Carroll
New York Times
Oct. 22, 2018
In a recent article in JAMA Internal Medicine, Pieter Cohen, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, urges us to consider the harms as well as the benefits. Among immune-compromised individuals, for instance, probiotics can lead to infections....
Given all of this, what are the benefits? The most obvious use of probiotics would be in the treatment of gastrointestinal disorders, given that they are focused on gut health. There have been many studies in this domain, so many that early this year the journal Nutrition published a systematic review of systematic reviews on the subject....
The takeaway: Certain strains were found useful in preventing diarrhea among children being prescribed antibiotics. A 2013 review showed that after antibiotic use, probiotics help prevent Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea. A review focused on acute infectious diarrhea found a benefit, again for certain strains of bacteria at controlled doses. There’s also evidence that they may help prevent necrotizing enterocolitis (a serious gastrointestinal condition) and death in preterm infants....
Those somewhat promising results — for very specific uses of very specific strains of bacteria in very specific instances — are just about all the “positive” results you can find....
Probiotics didn’t show a significant benefit for chronic diarrhea. Three reviews looked at how probiotics might improve Crohn’s disease, and none could find sufficient evidence to recommend their use. Four more reviews looked at ulcerative colitis, and similarly declared that we don’t have the data to show that they work. The same was true for the treatment of liver disease....
Reviews show that there is insufficient evidence to recommend their use to treat or prevent eczema, preterm labor, gestational diabetes, bacterial vaginosis, allergic diseases or urinary tract infections....
Reviews looking at the treatment or prevention of vulvovaginal candidiasis in women, pneumonia in patients hooked up to respirators, and colds in otherwise healthy people show some positive results. But the authors note that the studies are almost all of low quality, small in size, and often funded by companies with significant conflicts of interest....
Individual studies are similarly disappointing for probiotics. One examining obesity found limited effects. Another showed they don’t prevent cavities in teeth. They don’t help prevent infant colic, either....
-- Nbauman ( talk) 17:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
When good secondary sources (or at least, good primary sources such as large RCTs) become available, a section on depression and probiotics should probably be started. So far, only small primary studies seem to be available, e.g.:
Zazpot ( talk) 14:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study. (This is moot at the moment, anyhow, as no large RCTs seem to have been carried out yet on this particular subtopic, even though it does seem a popular research area.) Sorry for not being clearer in my first message. Zazpot ( talk) 23:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
"Global consumption" should be it's own heading, not a sub heading of "side effects". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.163.145 ( talk) 15:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)