No abstract

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with celiac disease (CD) experience persistent symptoms despite adhering to the gluten-free diet. Different studies have assessed the use of probiotics as an adjuvant treatment for CD. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of probiotics in improving gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and quality of life (QOL) in patients with CD. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and DARE databases up to February 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating probiotics compared with placebo for treating CD. We collected data on GI symptoms, QOL, adverse events, serum tumor necrosis factor-α, intestinal permeability, and microbiota composition. RESULTS: We screened 2,831 records and found that 7 articles describing 6 RCTs (n = 5,279 participants) were eligible for quantitative analysis. Probiotics improved GI symptoms when assessed by the GI Symptoms Rating Scale (mean difference symptom reduction: 228.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 243.96–213.52; P = 0.0002). There was no difference in GI symptoms after probiotics when different questionnaires were pooled. The levels of Bifidobacteria increased after probiotics (mean difference: 0.85 log colony-forming units (CFU) per gram; 95% CI 0.38–1.32 log CFU per gram; P = 0.0003). There were insufficient data on tumor necrosis factor-a levels or QOL for probiotics compared with placebo. No difference in adverse events was observed between probiotics and placebo. The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. DISCUSSION: Probiotics may improve GI symptoms in patients with CD. High-quality clinical trials are needed to improve the certainty in the evidence (see Visual abstract, Supplementary Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/AJG/B595).

Background Observational studies provide important information about the effects of exposures that cannot be easily studied in clinical trials, such as nutritional exposures, but are subject to confounding. Investigators adjust for confounders by entering them as covariates in analytic models. Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting and credibility of methods for selection of covariates in nutritional epidemiology studies. Methods We sampled 150 nutritional epidemiology studies published in 2007/2008 and 2017/2018 from the top 5 high-impact nutrition and medical journals and extracted information on methods for selection of covariates. Results Most studies did not report selecting covariates a priori (94.0%) or criteria for selection of covariates (63.3%). There was general inconsistency in choice of covariates, even among studies investigating similar questions. One-third of studies did not acknowledge potential for residual confounding in their discussion. Conclusion Studies often do not report methods for selection of covariates, follow available guidance for selection of covariates, nor discuss potential for residual confounding.