Skip to main content

Table 9 Summary of findings table: probiotic studies

From: Synbiotics, probiotics or prebiotics in infant formula for full term infants: a systematic review

Effects of infant formula containing Probiotics on clinical outcomes in full term infants
Patient or population: Full term infants, Settings: Multi-centre trials (hospitals), Intervention: Infant formula with probiotics, Comparison: Conventional infant formula
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) Measure of effect (95% CI) No of Participants (studies) Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
  Assumed risk Corresponding risk    
  Conventional formula Infant formula with probiotics    
Weight gain (g/day) for boys The mean (SD) weight gain (g/day) for boys in the control group ranged from 30.9 (6.1) to 32.8 (4.1) The mean weight gain (g/day) for boys in the intervention groups was 1.64 higher (0.36 lower to 3.64 higher) MD (95% CI): 1.64 (−0.36 to 3.64) 158 (4 studies)
Follow-up: 4 to 7 months      low 1,2
Weight gain (g/day) for girls The mean (SD) weight gain (g/day) for girls in the control group ranged from 26.5 (4.9) to 29 (6.3) The mean weight gain (g/day) for girls in the intervention groups was 0.76 higher (2.57 lower to 4.09 higher) MD (95% CI): 0.76 (−2.57 to 4.09) 170 (4 studies)
Follow-up: 4 to 7 months      low 3,4,5
Length gain (mm/month) for boys The mean (SD) length gain (mm/month) for boys in the control group ranged from 31.36 (4.48) to 37.3 (4.9) The mean length gain (mm/month) for boys in the intervention groups was 0.37 lower (1.64 lower to 0.9 higher) MD (95% CI): -0.37 (−1.64 to 0.90) 158 (4 studies)
Follow-up: 4 to 7 months      low 6,7
Length gain (mm/month) for girls The mean (SD) length gain (mm/month) for girls in the control group ranged from 28 (3.64) to 32 (4.6) The mean length gain (mm/month) for girls in the intervention groups was 0.32 higher (0.81 lower to 1.45 higher) MD (95% CI): 0.32 (−0.81 to 1.45) 165 (4 studies)
Follow-up: 4 to 7 months      low 8,9
Head circumference gain (mm/month) for boys The mean (SD) head circumference gain (mm/month) for boys in the control group ranged from 17.5 (3.4) to 35.28 (7) The mean head circumference gain (mm/month) for boys in the intervention groups was 0.76 higher (1.02 lower to 2.54 higher) MD (95% CI): 0.76 (−1.02 to 2.54) 125 (3 studies)
Follow-up: 4 to 7 months      low 10,11
Head circumference gain (mm/month) for girls The mean (SD) head circumference gain (mm/month) for girls in the control group ranged from16 (3) to 36.68 (15.4) The mean head circumference gain (mm/month) for girls in the intervention groups was 0.27 higher (0.7 lower to 1.23 higher) MD (95% CI): 0.27 (−0.70 to 1.23) 139 (3 studies)
Follow-up: 4 to 7 months      low 12,13
Bifidobacteria -log10(CFU) per gram of stool The mean (SD) bifidobacteria -log10(cfu) per gram of stool in the control group ranged 9.75 (0.5) to 10.11 (1.67) The mean bifidobacteria -log10(cfu) per gram of stool in the intervention groups was 1.27 lower (2.03 to 0.51 lower) MD (95% CI): -1.27 (−2.03 to −0.51) 57 (2 studies)
      low 14, 15
  1. *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the measure of effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval, CFU: colony forming units, MD: Mean Difference, RR: Risk ratio.
  2. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
  3. 1 Small sample size n=158, 95% CI includes no effect.
  4. 2 Possible publication bias.
  5. 3 Unexplained heterogeneity).
  6. 4 Small sample size n=170.
  7. 5 Possible publication bias.
  8. 6 Small sample size n=158, 95% CI includes no effect.
  9. 7 Possible publication bias.
  10. 8 Small sample size n=165, 95% CI includes no effect.
  11. 9 Possible publication bias.
  12. 10 Small sample size n=125, 95% CI includes no effect.
  13. 11 Possible publication bias.
  14. 12 Small sample size n=139.
  15. 13 Possible publication bias.
  16. 14 Small sample size n=57.
  17. 15 Possible publication bias.