↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety of probiotics in people with cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
21 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
Title
Systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety of probiotics in people with cancer
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00520-018-4216-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hadeel Hassan, M. Rompola, A. W. Glaser, S. E. Kinsey, R. S. Phillips

Abstract

Probiotics are living microorganisms that confer a health benefit on the host when administered. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the efficacy and safety of probiotics in adult and paediatric patients diagnosed with cancer. A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken (PROSPERO registration: CRD42016050252). Randomised controlled trials (RCT), identified through screening multiple databases were included for analysis of efficacy. Non-randomised controlled trials and case reports were included for safety analysis. Outcomes included the reduction in the incidence and severity of diarrhoea, and adverse events. Where possible, data were combined for meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Planned subgroup analyses were not possible through marked heterogeneity of study characteristics. Twenty one studies (N = 2982 participants) were included for assessment of efficacy. Probiotics may reduce the incidence of diarrhoea in patients with cancer [odds ratio (OR) = 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-0.78, 95% prediction interval (PI) 0.3-0.92, I-sq 36.9%, 5 studies] and the duration of pyrexia [standardised mean difference 0.39 days, 95% CI 0.35-0.43, I-sq 0.01%, 5 studies]. Twenty five studies (N = 2242) were included in the safety analysis. Five case reports showed probiotic-related bacteraemia/fungaemia/positive blood cultures. Definitions and reporting of adverse events were variable and inconsistent. There remain insufficient studies to assess the true effect of probiotics in people with cancer. Meta-analysis suggests probiotics may be beneficial but further studies are still required. Improved reporting of outcomes and adverse events in clinical trials are required to improve accuracy and confidence of conclusions drawn in future updates.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 13%
Researcher 11 11%
Other 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 18 18%
Unknown 36 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 33%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 4%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 39 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,701,563
of 25,078,088 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#211
of 5,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,809
of 332,360 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#6
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,078,088 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,360 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.