Meta-Analysis Open Access
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2024. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastrointest Surg. Nov 27, 2024; 16(11): 3546-3558
Published online Nov 27, 2024. doi: 10.4240/wjgs.v16.i11.3546
Preventive effect of probiotics on infections following colorectal cancer surgery: An umbrella meta-analysis
Yue Han, Min Guan, Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Shandong Provincial Third Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan 250031, Shandong Province, China
Yong Wang, Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Shandong Provincial Third Hospital, Shandong University, Jinan 250031, Shandong Province, China
ORCID number: Yue Han (0009-0001-4596-2831); Yong Wang (0009-0004-0640-0627); Min Guan (0009-0004-2692-0443).
Co-first authors: Yue Han and Yong Wang.
Author contributions: Han Y was responsible for conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing-original draft, writing-review and editing, visualization; Wang Y was responsible for methodology, investigation, resources, software, formal analysis, data curation, writing original draft, visualization; Guan M was responsible for supervision, methodology, conceptualization, project administration, investigation, writing-review and editing. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.
PRISMA 2009 Checklist statement: The authors have read the PRISMA 2009 Checklist, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the PRISMA 2009 Checklist.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Min Guan, PhD, Doctor, Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Shandong Provincial Third Hospital, Shandong University, No. 11 Middle Wuyingshan Road, Tianqiao District, Jinan 250031, Shandong Province, China. gmindoc@163.com
Received: May 9, 2024
Revised: August 7, 2024
Accepted: September 9, 2024
Published online: November 27, 2024
Processing time: 174 Days and 2.4 Hours

Abstract
BACKGROUND

Postoperative infections remain a significant source of morbidity among patients undergoing colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. While probiotics have been proposed as a potential strategy to mitigate the risk of these infections, contemporary meta-analyses have produced conflicting findings.

AIM

To synthesize the available evidence regarding the prophylactic efficacy of probiotics in preventing infections following CRC surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed and Scopus was conducted to identify relevant meta-analyses published up to February 2024. To assess the efficacy of probiotics on outcomes, relative risks (RR) and their corresponding 95%CI were pooled using a random effects model.

RESULTS

This comprehensive umbrella meta-analysis integrated eleven meta-analyses encompassing 11518 participants who fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Probiotics administration resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of total infections (RR: 0.40, 95%CI: 0.31-0.51; moderate certainty), surgical site infections (RR: 0.56, 95%CI: 0.49-0.63; high certainty), pneumonia (RR: 0.38, 95%CI: 0.30-0.48; high certainty), urinary tract infections (RR: 0.44, 95%CI: 0.31-0.61; moderate certainty), bacteremia (RR: 0.41, 95%CI: 0.30-0.56; high certainty), and sepsis (RR: 0.35, 95%CI: 0.25-0.44; high certainty). However, probiotics did not significantly affect intra-abdominal, central line, or peritoneal infections.

CONCLUSION

Probiotics have demonstrated potential in mitigating postoperative infectious complications among patients undergoing CRC surgery.

Key Words: Probiotics; Colorectal cancer Surgery; Postoperative infections; Pneumonia; Urinary tract infections; Bacteremia; Sepsis; Meta-analysis

Core Tip: This meta-analysis of 11 studies involving 11518 colorectal cancer (CRC) patients found that probiotics significantly reduce postoperative infection rates, including surgical site infections, pneumonia, urinary tract infections, bacteremia, and sepsis. Probiotics were particularly effective in preventing these complications, demonstrating minimal efficacy against intra-abdominal, central line, and peritoneal infections. These findings support the integration of probiotics into post-CRC surgery prevention strategies.



INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a formidable global health burden, ranking as the third most prevalent cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality[1,2]. The escalating incidence of CRC in recent years underscores its status as a major public health concern[3]. Surgical resection remains the cornerstone of treatment for localized CRC[4]. Despite advancements in surgical techniques and perioperative care, post-operative infections continue to pose a significant challenge in patients with CRC[5]. Surgical site infections (SSIs), accounting for 30%-40% of all postoperative complications, constitute the most common infection following CRC surgery[6]. Other prevalent infections after CRC surgery include pneumonia, urinary tract infections (UTIs), and septicemia[7,8]. Postoperative infections in CRC surgery significantly contribute to increased morbidity, mortality, prolonged hospital stays, and escalating healthcare costs[9]. Such infections arise from a complex interplay of factors, including surgical stress, intestinal mucosal damage, local immune system dysfunction, intestinal flora imbalance, and bacterial translocation[10]. While intravenous antibiotics effectively prevent infections, the growing prevalence of antimicrobial resistance poses a significant challenge for future management[11]. Moreover, antibiotic therapy can exacerbate flora disruption, leading to antibiotic-induced diarrhea and delayed patient recovery[12]. Given these formidable challenges, there is an urgent imperative to develop novel strategies for preventing postoperative infections, particularly within the context of CRC surgery.

The gut microbiota is crucial in maintaining intestinal homeostasis and modulating immune responses[13]. Colorectal surgery, characterized by surgical trauma, can disrupt the intestinal flora, leading to systemic inflammation and an increased risk of infectious complications[14,15]. Recent studies have explored the potential of probiotics to mitigate post-operative infections in CRC patients. Probiotics, known for their beneficial effects on gut health and immune modulation, have demonstrated promise in reducing infection rates by restoring gut microbiota balance, enhancing gut mucosal barrier integrity, and strengthening host defense mechanisms[16,17]. However, the existing evidence is conflicting. While some studies have reported a reduction in sepsis, pneumonia, and SSIs[6,18], with probiotic supplementation, others, such as Ouyang et al[19] have not observed a beneficial effect on urinary tract infection prevention. These discrepancies may be attributed to differences in probiotic types and the timing of intervention (intervention before/after surgery). To address this uncertainty, this umbrella meta-analysis aims to systematically review and synthesize the available evidence from multiple meta-analyses on the efficacy of probiotics in preventing post-surgical infections in CRC patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This umbrella meta-analysis adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines[20].

Literature search

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed and Scopus electronic databases, with no language restrictions, up to February 12, 2024. To identify relevant studies, a search strategy combining Medical Subject Headings and text words was employed: (probiotic* OR prebiotic* OR synbiotic) AND (colorectal OR colon OR rectal OR rectum) AND (neoplasms OR cancer OR malignancy OR tumor OR neoplasm OR surgery) AND (meta-analysis). The citations of identified meta-analyses were reviewed to ensure no relevant studies were missed. The EndNote software facilitated the selection process. Titles and abstracts of all retrieved studies were screened, leading to the exclusion of irrelevant papers. Subsequently, full-text articles were carefully examined to verify their eligibility based on the established inclusion criteria. Any discrepancies encountered during the screening process were resolved through consensus among all investigators.

Eligibility criteria

To be eligible for inclusion, studies were required to meet the following criteria: (1) Be a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (2) Investigate the efficacy of probiotics, alone or in combination with prebiotics (synbiotics), in reducing the risk of infections among patients undergoing CRC surgery compared to placebo or standard care; (3) Report on outcomes as total infections, pneumonia, UTIs, SSIs, sepsis, bacteremia, central line infection, intra-abdominal infection, and peritoneal infection; and (4) Provide summary measures and a 95%CI for the results. There was no minimum number of primary studies required for inclusion in the umbrella review as a cut-off point. Studies were excluded if they did not include a quantitative meta-analysis, failed to report pooled effect sizes for the outcomes, investigated irrelevant interventions or outcomes, did not focus on CRC patients, or were animal studies. Two authors independently selected the studies, with disagreements resolved through consensus among all authors.

Data extraction

Two independent reviewers extracted data from each meta-analysis, with any discrepancies resolved through consensus. The data abstracted included the publication year, country of origin, first author, total sample size, number of included primary studies, type of supplementation (probiotics vs probiotics and synbiotics), outcomes assessed, methods to evaluate the risk of bias (RoB) in the primary studies, and pooled effect sizes [relative risk (RR) with 95%CI] for the impact of probiotics on outcome risk.

Quality assessment and strength of the evidence

The methodological quality of the included meta-analyses was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 tool[21]. This instrument evaluates meta-analyses across 16 items, categorizing them as high, moderate, low, or critically low quality based on responses of ’Yes, Partial Yes, and No’. Additionally, the GRADE approach was employed to evaluate the certainty of evidence and the strength of recommendations for all outcomes[22]. Two reviewers independently assessed both GRADE and methodological quality. Any discrepancies were resolved through consultation with a third author.

Statistical analysis

All analyses were carried out with Stata software (version 14). The RRs and 95%CI were calculated as measures of effect and pooled across studies using a random-effects model. Before analysis, we converted the risk estimates from each meta-analysis to a logarithmic scale, and the corresponding SE. The I2 statistic was used to assess heterogeneity; heterogeneity was defined as the presence of a P value less than 0.1 or an I2 of 50% or greater. We visually examined small-study effects with funnel plots and used Egger's statistical test[23]. When there was significant evidence of publication bias, the trim-and-fill method[24] was used to adjust the pooled effect sizes for publication bias. Sensitivity analyses were performed by excluding individual studies and examining the remaining studies to determine the dependability of the results to single studies. A subgroup analysis was performed by supplementation type (multi-strain probiotics vs multi-strain probiotics and synbiotics), intervention time (preoperative vs pre- and postoperative), country (China vs other countries), and meta-analysis quality (moderate vs high) to assess potential sources of heterogeneity. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS
Characteristics of studies

The systematic search identified 128 studies. After excluding 31 duplicates and 74 studies deemed irrelevant based on their titles and abstracts, 23 underwent a comprehensive full-text review. Twelve studies were excluded due to irrelevant intervention/outcome, non-CRC surgery patient populations, or their status as protocols or review studies without quantitative analysis. The study selection process is illustrated in Figure 1. This umbrella meta-analysis included 11 meta-analyses[3,6,19,25-32], encompassing 11518 participants. The included studies, published between 2013 and 2024, originated from China, Brazil, Germany, and Korea. Sample sizes ranged from 361 to 1975 patients. Five studies employed multi-strain probiotics as an intervention[3,19,27,28,30], while the remaining six utilized a combination of multi-strain probiotics and synbiotics. Seven investigations[3,25-27,29,31,32] investigated the preoperative effects of probiotics on outcomes, and assessed the preoperative effects of probiotics on outcomes, whereas four studies[6,19,28,30] examined the pre- and postoperative impacts. In terms of outcomes, effect sizes were reported for total infections in 6 studies[19,25,27-29,32], SSIs in 10[3,6,19,26-32], pneumonia in 8[6,19,26,27,29-32], UTIs in 5[19,26,27,30,32], bacteremia in 3[26,28,32], sepsis in 5[6,25,27,29,32], intra-abdominal infection in 3[6,29,32], central line infection in 2[27,32], and peritoneal infection in 2[29,32]. The primary RCTs were evaluated for RoB using the Cochrane RoB tool[33], Jaded score[34], Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical assessment tool[35], and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tool[25]. Each meta-analysis incorporated between 9% and 100% of high-quality RCTs. de Andrade Calaça et al[28] and Persson et al[30] did not assess the RoB of the included RCTs. According to the AMSTAR-2 criteria, the included meta-analyses were deemed to be of high quality in six studies[6,25,26,29,31,32] and moderate in five[3,19,27,28,30] (Supplementary Table 1). Table 1 presents the characteristics of the studies included in the umbrella meta-analysis.

Figure 1
Figure 1 Flow diagram for the process of study selection.
Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies.
Ref.
Country
Number of included studies
Sample size
Supplementation time
Type of supplementation
Risk of bias tool, No. of high quality/total studies
Percentage of high-quality studies (%)
Investigated outcomes
Quality
Zeng et al[32], 2021China191975PreoperativeMulti-strain Probiotics and synbioticsCochrane, 19/19100Total infections, UTIs, bacteremia, sepsis, SSIs, pneumonia, central line infection, peritoneal infection, intra-abdominal infectionHigh
Amitay et al[25], 2020Germany11NRPreoperativeMulti-strain Probiotics and synbioticsNHBLI tool, 1/119Total infections, sepsisHigh
Rueda-Robles et al[43], 2022Brazil131535Pre- and postoperativeMulti-strain Probiotics and synbioticsJoanna Briggs Institute’s critical assessment tools, 2/1315Sepsis, SSIs, pneumonia, intra-abdominal infectionHigh
Ye et al[31], 2023China161798PreoperativeMulti-strain Probiotics and synbioticsJadad, 16/16100SSIs, pneumoniaHigh
He et al[29], 2013China6361PreoperativeMulti-strain Probiotics and synbioticsJadad, 5/683Total infections, sepsis, SSIs, pneumonia, peritoneal infection, abdominal infectionHigh
An et al[26], 2022Korea201763PreoperativeMulti-strain Probiotics and synbioticsCochrane, 6/2030UTIs, bacteremia, SSIs, pneumoniaHigh
de Andrade Calaça et al[28], 2017Brazil7821Pre- and postoperativeMulti-strain ProbioticsNRNRTotal infections, Bacteremia, SSIsModerate
Chen et al[27], 2020China6803PreoperativeMulti-strain ProbioticsJadad, 6/6100Total infections, UTIs, sepsis, SSIs, pneumonia, central line infectionModerate
Persson et al[30], 2024Brazil101276Pre- and postoperativeMulti-strain ProbioticsNRNRUTIs, SSIs, pneumoniaModerate
Ouyang et al[19], 2019China131186Pre- and postoperativeMulti-strain ProbioticsCochrane, 11/1384Total infections, UTIs, SSIs, pneumoniaModerate
Chen et al[3], 2024China10NRPreoperativeMulti-strain ProbioticsCochrane, 2/1020SSIsModerate
Findings from umbrella meta-analysis

A meta-analysis employing a random-effects model to aggregate multiple effect sizes revealed that probiotic intervention could significantly attenuate the risk of total infections (RR: 0.40, 95%CI: 0.31-0.51), SSIs (RR: 0.56, 95%CI: 0.49-0.63), pneumonia (RR: 0.38, 95%CI: 0.30-0.48), UTIs (RR: 0.44, 95%CI: 0.31-0.61), bacteremia (RR: 0.41, 95%CI: 0.30-0.56), and sepsis (RR: 0.35, 95%CI: 0.25-0.44; Figure 2). These substantial effects were consistently supported by subgroup analyses and were not influenced by supplementation type (multi-strain probiotics vs multi-strain probiotics and synbiotics), intervention timing (preoperative vs pre- and postoperative), geographic location (China vs other countries), or meta-analysis quality (moderate vs high) (Table 2). Probiotics did not exert a discernible effect on intra-abdominal, central line, or peritoneal infections (Figure 2). While total infections exhibited significant heterogeneity, other outcomes did not (Figure 2 and Table 2).

Figure 2
Figure 2 Pooled analysis for the effect of probiotics on infections after colorectal cancer surgery. A: Total infections; B: Surgical site infection; C: Sepsis; D: Bacteremia; E: Pneumonia, F: Central line infection; G: Intra-abdominal infection; H: Peritoneal infection; I: Urinary tract infection. RR: Relative risks.
Table 2 Overall and stratified analyses for the impacts of probiotics on post-surgical infections in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery.


Subgroups
Studies
Relative risk (95%CI)
I2 (%)
P value
Publication bias
Total infectionsOverall60.40 (0.31-0.51)56.10.040.31
Supplementation typeMulti-strain Probiotics30.50 (0.41-0.61)0.00.39
Multi-strain Probiotics and synbiotics30.31 (0.25-0.40)0.00.56
Intervention timePreoperative40.31 (0.25-0.40)0.00.77
Pre- and postoperative20.52 (0.42-0.64)0.00.85
CountryChina40.37 (0.26-0.52)59.60.06
Other countries20.44 (0.29-0.68)59.70.11
Quality of studiesHigh30.31 (0.25-0.40)0.00.56
Moderate30.50 (0.41-0.61)0.00.39
Urinary tract infectionsOverall50.44 (0.31-0.61)0.00.660.009
Supplementation typeMulti-strain Probiotics30.43 (0.27-0.69)16.20.30
Multi-strain Probiotics and synbiotics20.44 (0.26-0.74)0.00.86
Intervention timePreoperative30.38 (0.25-0.59)0.00.57
Pre- and postoperative20.52 (0.32-0.86)0.00.49
CountryChina30.43 (0.27-0.59)16.40.30
Other countries20.45 (0.27-0.75)0.00.89
Quality of studiesHigh20.44 (0.26-0.74)0.00.86
Moderate30.43 (0.27-0.69)16.20.30
BacteremiaOverall30.41 (0.30-0.56)0.00.910.80
Supplementation typeMulti-strain Probiotics10.40 (0.26-0.62)--
Multi-strain Probiotics and synbiotics20.42 (0.27-0.67)0.00.70
Intervention timePreoperative20.42 (0.27-0.67)0.00.70
Pre- and postoperative10.40 (0.26-0.62)--
CountryChina10.37 (0.16-0.86)--
Other countries0.42 (0.30-0.59)0.00.74
Quality of studiesHigh20.42 (0.27-0.67)0.00.70
Moderate10.40 (0.26-0.62)--
SepsisOverall50.35 (0.25-0.44)0.00.900.87
Supplementation typeMulti-strain Probiotics10.28 (0.17-0.47)--
Multi-strain Probiotics and synbiotics40.35 (0.25-0.50)0.00.92
Intervention timePreoperative40.31 (0.23-0.43)0.00.92
Pre- and postoperative10.41 (0.22-0.78)--
CountryChina30.31 (0.21-0.46)0.00.78
Other countries20.35 (0.23-0.53)0.00.52
Quality of studiesHigh40.35 (0.25-0.50)0.00.92
Moderate10.28 (0.17-0.47)--
Surgical site infectionOverall100.56 (0.49-0.63)0.00.710.94
Supplementation typeMulti-strain Probiotics50.56 (0.45-0.70)0.00.70
Multi-strain Probiotics and synbiotics50.56 (0.47-0.66)5.80.37
Intervention timePreoperative60.55 (0.47-0.65)3.20.39
Pre- and postoperative40.56 (0.44-0.71)0.00.78
CountryChina60.53 (0.44-0.63)0.00.59
Other countries40.60 (0.49-0.73)0.00.64
Quality of studiesHigh50.56 (0.47-0.66)5.80.37
Moderate50.56 (0.45-0.70)0.00.73
PneumoniaOverall80.38 (0.30-0.48)0.00.890.74
Supplementation typeMulti-strain Probiotics30.61 (0.55-0.67)5.10.34
Multi-strain Probiotics and synbiotics50.36 (0.26-0.49)0.00.97
Intervention timePreoperative50.35 (0.26-0.48)0.00.98
Pre- and postoperative30.42 (0.29-0.62)0.00.37
CountryChina50.39 (0.29-0.59)0.00.65
Other countries30.36 (0.25-0.53)0.00.82
Quality of studiesHigh50.36 (0.26-0.49)0.00.97
Moderate30.41 (0.28-0.60)5.10.34
Central line infectionOverall20.34 (0.14-0.81)11.10.28-
Peritoneal infectionOverall20.42 (0.18-1.01)0.00.89-
Intra-abdominal infectionOverall30.51 (0.25-1.04)0.00.450.50
Supplementation typeMulti-strain Probiotics and synbiotics30.51 (0.25-1.04)0.00.45
Intervention timePreoperative20.78 (0.28-2.02)0.00.55
Pre- and postoperative10.35 (0.13-0.97)--
CountryChina20.78 (0.28-2.02)0.00.55
Other countries10.35 (0.13-0.97)--
Quality of studiesHigh30.51 (0.25-1.04)0.00.45
Sensitivity analysis and publication bias

The sensitivity analysis, which entailed excluding individual studies from the analysis followed by the recalculation of the pooled effect sizes using the residual studies, did not reveal any substantial alterations, suggesting the reliability of the findings. A significant publication bias was identified for UTIs (P = 0.009). However, there was no evidence of small study effects for other outcomes when evaluated using Egger's regression test (Figure 3 and Table 2). The adjusted pooled effect size for UTIs, as derived from the trim-and-fill method, yielded a similar estimate (RR: 0.45, 95%CI: 0.29-0.67).

Figure 3
Figure 3 Funnel plots of publication bias for the effect of probiotics on infections after colorectal cancer surgery. A: Total infections; B: Surgical site infection; C: Sepsis; D: Bacteremia; E: Pneumonia, F: Intra-abdominal infection; G: Urinary tract infection. RR: Relative risks.
Strength of evidence

The GRADE criteria assessed the evidence quality of total infections, UTIs, central line infections, peritoneal infections, and intra-abdominal infections as moderate. SSIs, pneumonia, bacteremia, and sepsis were deemed to have high evidence quality (Table 3).

Table 3 Strength of evidence according to the GRADE.
Outcome
No. of studies
Design
Risk of bias
Inconsistency
Indirectness
Imprecision
Other considerations
Relative risk (95%CI)
Quality
Importance
Total infections6 studiesMeta-analysis of RCTsNo seriousSerious2No seriousNo seriousNone0.40 (0.31-0.51)Moderate (+)(+)(+)Critical
Urinary tract infections5 studiesMeta-analysis of RCTsSerious1No seriousNo seriousNo seriousNone0.44 (0.31-0.61)Moderate (+)(+)(+)Important
Bacteremia3 studiesMeta-analysis of RCTsNo seriousNo seriousNo seriousNo seriousNone0.41 (0.30-0.56)High (+)(+)(+)(+)Important
Sepsis5 studiesMeta-analysis of RCTsNo seriousNo seriousNo seriousNo seriousNone0.35 (0.25-0.44)High (+)(+)(+)(+)Critical
Surgical site infection10 studiesMeta-analysis of RCTsNo seriousNo seriousNo seriousNo seriousNone0.56 (0.49-0.63)High (+)(+)(+)(+)Critical
Pneumonia8 studiesMeta-analysis of RCTsNo seriousNo seriousNo seriousNo seriousNone0.38 (0.30-0.48)High (+)(+)(+)(+)Critical
Central line infection2 studiesMeta-analysis of RCTsNo seriousNo seriousNo seriousSerious3None0.34 (0.14-0.81)Moderate (+)(+)(+)Critical
Peritoneal infection2 studiesMeta-analysis of RCTsNo seriousNo seriousNo seriousSerious3None0.42 (0.18-1.01)Moderate (+)(+)(+)Critical
Intra-abdominal infection3 studiesMeta-analysis of RCTsNo seriousNo seriousNo seriousSerious3None0.51 (0.25-1.04)Moderate (+)(+)(+)Critical
DISCUSSION

The primary objective of this umbrella meta-analysis was to ascertain the efficacy of probiotics in averting post-surgical infectious complications in patients undergoing CRC surgery. The empirical findings unequivocally demonstrate the exceptional efficacy of probiotics in preventing post-surgical infectious complications, including total infections, SSIs, pneumonia, UTIs, bacteremia, and sepsis.

Postoperative infectious complications represent a significant concern following CRC surgery, as they can prolong hospitalization, elevate healthcare expenditures, and potentially increase morbidity and mortality rates[36]. Susceptibility to these infections has been associated with gut barrier disruption, heightened intestinal permeability, gut microbiota imbalance, and compromised host immunity[37,38]. Surgical intervention that disrupts the gut microbiota can enhance susceptibility to infections, retard wound healing, and precipitate other adverse complications[39]. Several studies have postulated that probiotics can mitigate the risk of postoperative infections by ameliorating intestinal microbial flora and reducing intestinal permeability[17,19].

Currently, there is no definitive consensus regarding the efficacy of probiotics in preventing postoperative infections following CRC surgery. Our umbrella meta-analysis revealed substantial evidence supporting the beneficial impact of probiotics on reducing the risk of infections after CRC surgery. The significant decrease in postoperative infections, as indicated by relative risks ranging from 0.34 to 0.56, transcends statistical significance and is clinically meaningful in terms of the magnitude of the effects. These findings can enhance patient outcomes, curtail antibiotic usage, diminish hospital readmissions, lower healthcare costs associated with treating infections, and improve the overall quality of care for patients undergoing CRC surgery. Furthermore, these findings may facilitate the development of targeted interventions and guidelines aimed at reducing postoperative infections and optimizing recovery outcomes for individuals undergoing surgery.

However, probiotics exhibited no significant effect on intra-abdominal, central line, or peritoneal infections. These observations underscore the need for further research to elucidate the optimal administration of probiotics in specific contexts, as well as potential combination therapies or tailored formulations. Future investigations should focus on refining probiotic protocols, identifying underlying mechanisms of action, and examining their broader implications for patient outcomes and healthcare costs.

Probiotics have demonstrated efficacy in mitigating post-surgical infections following CRC surgery through diverse mechanisms. These mechanisms encompass the preservation of gut microbiota equilibrium, augmentation of immune responses, diminution of pathogen adhesion, generation of antimicrobial substances, and fortification of intestinal barrier function[17,40-42]. Probiotics actively contribute to maintaining a balanced gut microbiota by stimulating the proliferation of beneficial bacteria while concurrently suppressing the growth of detrimental pathogens. This well-established microbiota plays a pivotal role in bolstering the immune system and safeguarding against infections[43]. Probiotics have been demonstrated in numerous studies to exert a significant influence on the immune response. By stimulating the production of anti-inflammatory cytokines and enhancing the functionality of immune cells, probiotics contribute to a more balanced immune milieu[44]. These beneficial microorganisms can effectively mitigate gut inflammation through mechanisms such as the inhibition of nuclear factor-κB activation and the augmentation of humoral immunity markers, including IgG, IgM, IgA, interleukin-2 (IL-2), and CD4+ T cells[45]. Moreover, probiotics play a pivotal role in regulating serum levels of IL-6 and C-reactive protein, alleviating stress, and diminishing the likelihood of postoperative infections[17]. The potentiated immune response facilitated by probiotics can significantly enhance the body's capacity to counter potential pathogens that may give rise to post-surgical infections. Additionally, probiotics exhibit a competitive advantage over pathogenic bacteria in vying for adhesion sites on the gut lining, thereby restricting their ability to colonize and induce infections[46]. Certain probiotic strains synthesize antimicrobial compounds, including hydrogen peroxide, bacteriocins, and lactic acid, which can directly suppress the proliferation of pathogenic bacteria, thereby mitigating the likelihood of infection[42]. Moreover, probiotics contribute to reinforcing the intestinal epithelial barrier, preventing the translocation of harmful microorganisms from the gastrointestinal tract to other body regions[47], thereby diminishing the risk of systemic infections. Through modulating these biological processes, probiotics can effectively reduce the incidence of various postoperative infections.

This meta-analysis represents, to our knowledge, the inaugural comprehensive assessment of probiotic efficacy in mitigating post-colorectal surgery infections. Distinguishing features of our study include substantial sample size, a thorough examination of infectious outcomes, and the inclusion of subgroup and sensitivity analyses to bolster result credibility. The moderate-to-high level of evidence, as determined by the GRADE method, for the evaluated outcomes establishes a robust framework for comprehending the impact of probiotic administration on postoperative infectious complications. This study empowers healthcare providers to make more evidence-based decisions regarding the management of patients undergoing colorectal surgery. By facilitating the rapid translation of scientific research into clinical practice, it represents a significant advancement in the field. Despite its strengths, certain limitations warrant consideration. Although heterogeneity was minimal in most analyses, a notable degree of variability was observed among studies investigating total infections. This heterogeneity was not attributable to differences in supplementation type, intervention time, study quality, publication year, sample size, number of primary RCTs, or the proportion of trials with low ROB. However, geographical variations emerged as a potential source of the observed heterogeneity. A random-effects model was employed to mitigate the influence of heterogeneity on the pooled estimates. Among the examined outcomes, publication bias was most pronounced for UTIs. However, a trim-and-fill analysis indicated that the impact of publication bias on the combined estimate was minimal, suggesting the robustness of our findings. The included studies did not explore the effects of specific bacterial types, dosage, or follow-up duration, thereby limiting our capacity to conduct subgroup analyses based on these factors and identify the most efficacious interventions.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the present umbrella meta-analysis provides compelling evidence supporting the efficacy of probiotics in preventing SSIs, pneumonia, UTIs, bacteremia, and sepsis following CRC surgery. These findings underscore the potential for probiotics to enhance surgical recovery outcomes. However, further research is imperative to elucidate the optimal treatment regimen, including the most efficacious probiotic strains, appropriate dosages, and duration of therapy.

Footnotes

Provenance and peer review: Unsolicited article; Externally peer reviewed.

Peer-review model: Single blind

Specialty type: Gastroenterology and hepatology

Country of origin: China

Peer-review report’s classification

Scientific Quality: Grade B

Novelty: Grade B

Creativity or Innovation: Grade B

Scientific Significance: Grade B

P-Reviewer: Osera S S-Editor: Li L L-Editor: A P-Editor: Yu HG

References
1.  Goodarzi G, Mozaffari H, Raeisi T, Mehravar F, Razi B, Ghazi ML, Garousi N, Alizadeh S, Janmohammadi P. Metabolic phenotypes and risk of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. BMC Cancer. 2022;22:89.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 5]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1]  [Article Influence: 0.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
2.  Mohseni R, Mohseni F, Alizadeh S, Abbasi S. The Association of Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) Diet with the Risk of Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies. Nutr Cancer. 2020;72:778-790.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 13]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11]  [Article Influence: 2.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
3.  Chen J, Zhao J, Wu H, Wang T, Gao C. Efficacy and safety of oral probiotic supplementation in mitigating postoperative surgical site infections in patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Wound J. 2024;21:e14603.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
4.  Dorudi S, Steele RJ, McArdle CS. Surgery for colorectal cancer. Br Med Bull. 2002;64:101-118.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 14]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 16]  [Article Influence: 0.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
5.  Kirchhoff P, Clavien PA, Hahnloser D. Complications in colorectal surgery: risk factors and preventive strategies. Patient Saf Surg. 2010;4:5.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 208]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 252]  [Article Influence: 18.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
6.  Araújo MM, Montalvão-Sousa TM, Teixeira PDC, Figueiredo ACMG, Botelho PB. The effect of probiotics on postsurgical complications in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutr Rev. 2023;81:493-510.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
7.  Warps AK, Tollenaar RAEM, Tanis PJ, Dekker JWT; Dutch ColoRectal Audit. Postoperative complications after colorectal cancer surgery and the association with long-term survival. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2022;48:873-882.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 16]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
8.  Kerin Povšič M, Ihan A, Beovič B. Post-Operative Infection Is an Independent Risk Factor for Worse Long-Term Survival after Colorectal Cancer Surgery. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2016;17:700-712.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 11]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 11]  [Article Influence: 1.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
9.  Govaert JA, Fiocco M, van Dijk WA, Scheffer AC, de Graaf EJ, Tollenaar RA, Wouters MW; Dutch Value Based Healthcare Study Group. Costs of complications after colorectal cancer surgery in the Netherlands: Building the business case for hospitals. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41:1059-1067.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 46]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 55]  [Article Influence: 6.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
10.  Reddy BS, Gatt M, Sowdi R, MacFie J. Surgical manipulation of the large intestine increases bacterial translocation in patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Colorectal Dis. 2006;8:596-600.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 24]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 29]  [Article Influence: 1.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
11.  Liu PC, Yan YK, Ma YJ, Wang XW, Geng J, Wang MC, Wei FX, Zhang YW, Xu XD, Zhang YC. Probiotics Reduce Postoperative Infections in Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2017;2017:6029075.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 17]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 20]  [Article Influence: 2.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
12.  Duan H, Yu L, Tian F, Zhai Q, Fan L, Chen W. Antibiotic-induced gut dysbiosis and barrier disruption and the potential protective strategies. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2022;62:1427-1452.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 11]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 69]  [Article Influence: 17.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
13.  Chung H, Kasper DL. Microbiota-stimulated immune mechanisms to maintain gut homeostasis. Curr Opin Immunol. 2010;22:455-460.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 140]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 146]  [Article Influence: 10.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
14.  Cong J, Zhu H, Liu D, Li T, Zhang C, Zhu J, Lv H, Liu K, Hao C, Tian Z, Zhang J, Zhang X. A Pilot Study: Changes of Gut Microbiota in Post-surgery Colorectal Cancer Patients. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2777.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 30]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 32]  [Article Influence: 5.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
15.  Gaines S, Shao C, Hyman N, Alverdy JC. Gut microbiome influences on anastomotic leak and recurrence rates following colorectal cancer surgery. Br J Surg. 2018;105:e131-e141.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 81]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 98]  [Article Influence: 16.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
16.  Eslami M, Yousefi B, Kokhaei P, Hemati M, Nejad ZR, Arabkari V, Namdar A. Importance of probiotics in the prevention and treatment of colorectal cancer. J Cell Physiol. 2019;234:17127-17143.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 95]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 98]  [Article Influence: 19.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
17.  Zhang JW, Du P, Gao J, Yang BR, Fang WJ, Ying CM. Preoperative probiotics decrease postoperative infectious complications of colorectal cancer. Am J Med Sci. 2012;343:199-205.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 98]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 106]  [Article Influence: 8.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
18.  Yang Z, Wu Q, Liu Y, Fan D. Effect of Perioperative Probiotics and Synbiotics on Postoperative Infections After Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2017;41:1051-1062.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 31]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 34]  [Article Influence: 4.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
19.  Ouyang X, Li Q, Shi M, Niu D, Song W, Nian Q, Li X, Ding Z, Ai X, Wang J. Probiotics for preventing postoperative infection in colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2019;34:459-469.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 19]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 22]  [Article Influence: 4.4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
20.  Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 32381]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 28512]  [Article Influence: 9504.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
21.  Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D, Tugwell P, Welch V, Kristjansson E, Henry DA. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 3100]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4710]  [Article Influence: 672.9]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
22.  Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Henry D, Hill S, Liberati A, O'Connell D, Oxman AD, Phillips B, Schünemann H, Edejer TT, Vist GE, Williams JW Jr; GRADE Working Group. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004;4:38.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 672]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 793]  [Article Influence: 39.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
23.  Hayashino Y, Noguchi Y, Fukui T. Systematic evaluation and comparison of statistical tests for publication bias. J Epidemiol. 2005;15:235-243.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 192]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 249]  [Article Influence: 13.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
24.  Shi L, Lin L. The trim-and-fill method for publication bias: practical guidelines and recommendations based on a large database of meta-analyses. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98:e15987.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 261]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 378]  [Article Influence: 75.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
25.  Amitay EL, Carr PR, Gies A, Laetsch DC, Brenner H. Probiotic/Synbiotic Treatment and Postoperative Complications in Colorectal Cancer Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2020;11:e00268.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 13]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 28]  [Article Influence: 9.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
26.  An S, Kim K, Kim MH, Jung JH, Kim Y. Perioperative Probiotics Application for Preventing Postoperative Complications in Patients with Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022;58.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 3]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2]  [Article Influence: 1.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
27.  Chen C, Wen T, Zhao Q. Probiotics Used for Postoperative Infections in Patients Undergoing Colorectal Cancer Surgery. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:5734718.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 4]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5]  [Article Influence: 1.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
28.  de Andrade Calaça PR, Bezerra RP, Albuquerque WWC, Porto ALF, Cavalcanti MTH. Probiotics as a preventive strategy for surgical infection in colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2:67.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 12]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 16]  [Article Influence: 2.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
29.  He D, Wang HY, Feng JY, Zhang MM, Zhou Y, Wu XT. Use of pro-/synbiotics as prophylaxis in patients undergoing colorectal resection for cancer: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2013;37:406-415.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 38]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 36]  [Article Influence: 3.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
30.  Persson JE, Viana P, Persson M, Relvas JH, Danielski LG. Perioperative or Postoperative Probiotics Reduce Treatment-Related Complications in Adult Colorectal Cancer Patients Undergoing Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2024;55:740-748.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
31.  Ye J, Hu Y, Chen X, Chang C, Li K. Comparative Effects of Different Nutritional Supplements on Inflammation, Nutritional Status, and Clinical Outcomes in Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Nutrients. 2023;15.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 2]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 2]  [Article Influence: 2.0]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
32.  Zeng J, Ji Y, Liang B, Zhang G, Chen D, Zhu M, Wu S, Kuang W. The effect of pro/synbiotics on postoperative infections in colorectal cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2021;43:101370.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 4]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4]  [Article Influence: 1.3]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
33.  Jørgensen L, Paludan-Müller AS, Laursen DR, Savović J, Boutron I, Sterne JA, Higgins JP, Hróbjartsson A. Evaluation of the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized clinical trials: overview of published comments and analysis of user practice in Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:80.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 146]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 198]  [Article Influence: 24.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
34.  Clark HD, Wells GA, Huët C, McAlister FA, Salmi LR, Fergusson D, Laupacis A. Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad scale. Control Clin Trials. 1999;20:448-452.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 417]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 446]  [Article Influence: 17.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
35.  Munn Z, Aromataris E, Tufanaru C, Stern C, Porritt K, Farrow J, Lockwood C, Stephenson M, Moola S, Lizarondo L, McArthur A, Peters M, Pearson A, Jordan Z. The development of software to support multiple systematic review types: the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI). Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2019;17:36-43.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 428]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 441]  [Article Influence: 88.2]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
36.  Yao L, Xiao M, Luo Y, Yan L, Zhao Q, Li Y. Research on the factors that influence patients with colorectal cancer participating in the prevention and control of surgical site infection: Based on the extended theory of planned behaviour. Health Expect. 2021;24:2087-2097.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 4]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
37.  MacFie J, Reddy BS, Gatt M, Jain PK, Sowdi R, Mitchell CJ. Bacterial translocation studied in 927 patients over 13 years. Br J Surg. 2006;93:87-93.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 141]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 127]  [Article Influence: 7.1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
38.  Ferrie S, Webster A, Wu B, Tan C, Carey S. Gastrointestinal surgery and the gut microbiome: a systematic literature review. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2021;75:12-25.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 4]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 10]  [Article Influence: 2.5]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
39.  Schmitt FCF, Schneider M, Mathejczyk W, Weigand MA, Figueiredo JC, Li CI, Shibata D, Siegel EM, Toriola AT, Ulrich CM, Ulrich AB, Boutin S, Gigic B. Postoperative Complications Are Associated with Long-Term Changes in the Gut Microbiota Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery. Life (Basel). 2021;11.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 4]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 8]  [Article Influence: 2.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
40.  Nomoto K. Prevention of infections by probiotics. J Biosci Bioeng. 2005;100:583-592.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 113]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 88]  [Article Influence: 4.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
41.  Stavrou G, Giamarellos-Bourboulis EJ, Kotzampassi K. The role of probiotics in the prevention of severe infections following abdominal surgery. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2015;46 Suppl 1:S2-S4.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 5]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 5]  [Article Influence: 0.6]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
42.  Martindale R, Warren M, Tsikitis VL. Probiotics in Colorectal Surgery. World J Surg. 2015;39:2784-2785.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 1]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
43.  Rueda-Robles A, Rodríguez-Lara A, Meyers MS, Sáez-Lara MJ, Álvarez-Mercado AI. Effect of Probiotics on Host-Microbiota in Bacterial Infections. Pathogens. 2022;11.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
44.  Borchers AT, Selmi C, Meyers FJ, Keen CL, Gershwin ME. Probiotics and immunity. J Gastroenterol. 2009;44:26-46.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 303]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 295]  [Article Influence: 19.7]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
45.  Zhu D, Chen X, Wu J, Ju Y, Feng J, Lu G, Ouyang M, Ren B, Li Y. [Effect of perioperative intestinal probiotics on intestinal flora and immune function in patients with colorectal cancer]. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2012;32:1190-1193.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]
46.  Monteagudo-Mera A, Rastall RA, Gibson GR, Charalampopoulos D, Chatzifragkou A. Adhesion mechanisms mediated by probiotics and prebiotics and their potential impact on human health. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2019;103:6463-6472.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in Crossref: 202]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 299]  [Article Influence: 59.8]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]
47.  Zheng Y, Zhang Z, Tang P, Wu Y, Zhang A, Li D, Wang CZ, Wan JY, Yao H, Yuan CS. Probiotics fortify intestinal barrier function: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Front Immunol. 2023;14:1143548.  [PubMed]  [DOI]  [Cited in This Article: ]  [Cited by in F6Publishing: 21]  [Reference Citation Analysis (0)]