IntroductionBreast cancer has become a common tumour that threatens women’s physical and mental health. Microbial agents play an important role in maintaining the balance of gut microbiota and modulating intestinal immunity, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects. Available evidence points to a strong association between them and breast cancer. However, there has been no systematic review of the effects of microbial agents in patients with breast cancer. This protocol aims to explore the effectiveness and safety of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics in patients with breast cancer.Methods and analysisWe will search the following electronic databases for relevant randomised controlled trials: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. Grey literature and reference lists of original studies will also be searched to avoid omissions. We will use the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of the included studies. The primary outcomes include patients’ arm oedema volume, changes in gut microbiota composition and anthropometric parameters. Two independent reviewers will perform literature screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Data synthesis will be performed using descriptive analysis or meta-analysis. The quality of the evidence for each outcome will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool.Ethics and disseminationThe data for systematic reviews are derived from published original studies and do not require review and approval by the ethics committee. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42022311502.

The moist healing theory proves that a moderately moist and airtight environment is conducive to wound healing. However, different moist dressings have different functions. We aim to evaluate the effects of moist dressings on wound healing after surgical suturing and identify superior moist dressings. Randomised controlled trials investigating the application of moist dressings were retrieved from electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Wound healing, surgical site infection (SSI), and times of dressing change were assessed. The values of the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve were calculated based on the Bayesian network meta‐analysis. Inconsistency tests and funnel plots were applied to analyse the consistency and publication bias. All the analysis complies with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses) 2020 Checklist and AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) Guidelines. Sixteen randomised controlled trials involving 4444 patients were pooled in the network meta‐analysis. The ionic silver dressing (SUCRA, 93%) ranked first in wound healing, the metallic silver dressing (SUCRA, 75.9%) ranked first in SSI, and the hydrocolloid dressing (SUCRA, 73.9%) ranked first in times of dressing change. Inconsistency was only observed in wound healing, and no publication bias was observed in this study. The effects of moist dressings are better than gauze dressings in the process of wound healing. The ionic silver dressing is effective in wound healing, whereas the metallic silver dressing is effective in SSI prevention. The hydrocolloid dressing requires the fewest times of dressing change. More high‐quality RCTs are required to support the network meta‐analysis.