[A meta-analysis of probiotics for the treatment of XXXX ].

@entity1 @entity7126 @entity1744 @entity490
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of probiotics to treat @entity1744 ( @entity1744 ). METHODS: Publications from database including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, CBM and WanFang Data were searched up to August 31, 2014. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on probiotics to treat @entity1744 were eligible. The related articles were extracted and cross-checked independently by two reviewers. Methodological quality of trials was evaluated according to Cochrane Handbook 5.1.0 criteria. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.2 software. RESULTS: A total of 17 RCTs involving 1 700 @entity1 were included. Results of meta-analyses showed that compared with the placebo, probiotics was statistically better in improving the overall symptoms integral ( @entity7126 = -0.20, 95% CI -0.33--0.07, P = 0.002), alleviating @entity490 /discomfort ( @entity7126 = -0.19, 95% CI -0.29--0.09, P<0.001), relieving abdominal distention ( @entity7126 = -0.16, 95% CI -0.28--0.03, P = 0.020), and defecation discomfort ( @entity7126 = -0.22, 95% CI -0.42--0.02, P = 0.030). There was no statistical significance in the overall quality of life ( @entity7126 = -0.08, 95% CI -0.07-0.23, P = 0.290) and adverse effect ratio (RR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.79-1.49, P = 0.630). CONCLUSION: Probiotics have beneficial effects on @entity1744 , which can improve the @entity1 ' symptoms and with less adverse reaction. Due to the bias, further large-scale, multicenter and high-quality RCTs are required to unify outcome indicators, further define sensitive strain, and standardize its usage, dosage and course of treatment.
