Premium
Probiotics for Weight Loss: Assessing the Evidence
Author(s) -
Cook Chad M,
Liska DeAnn J,
Mantilla Libertie B
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.31.1_supplement.965.38
Subject(s) - weight loss , meta analysis , randomized controlled trial , medicine , placebo , cochrane library , obesity , alternative medicine , pathology
Emerging randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have suggested probiotics benefit weight loss or attenuate weight gain in adult humans. Recent meta‐analyses of these RCTs, however, have been inconclusive or conflicting. For example, one meta‐analysis concluded probiotics had no significant effect on body weight, with a mean difference of −1.77 kg (95% CI, −4.84 to 1.29 kg) comparing probiotics vs. placebo. In contrast, another meta‐analyis published in the same timeframe indicated probiotic consumption significantly reduced body weight by −0.59 kg (95% CI, −0.87 to −0.30 kg) vs. placebo. To understand these divergent conclusions, we conducted a study to systematically compare published meta‐analyses on the use of probiotics in RCTs for weight loss in adults. A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed and the Cochrane Library (date of inception to November, 2016) for studies that included a systematic literature search and quantitative analysis. Five additional meta‐analyses were identified, resulting in a total of 7 studies that quantified the totality of evidence on probiotics and weight loss / BMI reduction published between 2012 and 2016. Overall, 3 meta‐analyses published positive conclusions, 3 published negative or null conclusions, and 1 indicated data were inconclusive. Three included RCTs examining effects of probiotics on non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease or lipids/CVD risk markers, but included weight or BMI as a secondary outcome. Four meta‐analyses included RCTs with a primary outcome of change in body weight or BMI. In depth review of the analyses revealed the available RCT data were not uniformly considered across the studies. Furthermore, inconsistency in meta‐analysis methodologies, including heterogeneity in study inclusion/exclusion criteria, likely contributed to the divergent conclusions. Pivotal studies and other factors contributing to the conclusions were identified. Future meta‐analyses should consider restricting analysis of RCTs with similar probiotic strains and dosages as opposed to grouping all probiotics together, and compare studies with similar feeding/administration type (e.g., fermented foods vs. capsules/tablets). Support or Funding Information No external funding was received.