Suppr超能文献

益生元、益生菌、发酵食品与认知结果:随机对照试验的荟萃分析

Prebiotics, probiotics, fermented foods and cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

作者信息

Marx Wolfgang, Scholey Andrew, Firth Joseph, D'Cunha Nathan M, Lane Melissa, Hockey Meghan, Ashton Melanie M, Cryan John F, O'Neil Adrienne, Naumovski Nenad, Berk Michael, Dean Olivia M, Jacka Felice

机构信息

Deakin University, iMPACT, School of Medicine, Geelong, Australia.

Centre for Human Psychopharmacology, Swinburne University, VIC 3122, Australia.

出版信息

Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2020 Nov;118:472-484. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.07.036. Epub 2020 Aug 27.

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate randomized controlled trials that investigated the use of probiotic, prebiotic, and fermented food interventions for cognitive performance. In total, 22 studies (n = 1551) were included that investigated probiotics (11 studies, n = 724), prebiotics (5 studies, n = 355), and fermented foods (6 studies, n = 472). Despite several individual studies (14 of 22) reporting significant improvements in specific cognitive domains, results of the pooled meta-analysis found no significant effect for any intervention for global cognition (Probiotics: g = 0.115, 95 %CI -0.041, 0.270, p = 0.148; Prebiotics: g = 0.077, 95 %CI -0.091, 0.246, p = 0.369; Fermented food: g = 0.164 95 %CI -0.017, 0.345, p = 0.076) or any individual cognitive domain. Most studies (16 of 22) had low risk of bias. These results do not support the use of probiotic, prebiotic, and fermented food interventions for cognitive outcomes. This may be due to the limited number of small and short-term studies as well clinical heterogeneity relating to the population, cognitive tests, and intervention. Therefore, further trials that investigate these interventions in clinical populations using adequately powered samples are warranted. PROSPERO: CRD42019137936.

摘要

本系统评价和荟萃分析旨在评估调查益生菌、益生元及发酵食品干预对认知表现影响的随机对照试验。总共纳入了22项研究(n = 1551),其中研究益生菌的有11项(n = 724),研究益生元的有5项(n = 355),研究发酵食品的有6项(n = 472)。尽管有几项个体研究(22项中的14项)报告了特定认知领域有显著改善,但汇总的荟萃分析结果发现,任何干预措施对整体认知均无显著影响(益生菌:g = 0.115,95%CI -0.041,0.270,p = 0.148;益生元:g = 0.077,95%CI -0.091,0.246,p = 0.369;发酵食品:g = 0.164,95%CI -0.017,0.345,p = 0.076),对任何个体认知领域也无显著影响。大多数研究(22项中的16项)偏倚风险较低。这些结果不支持使用益生菌、益生元及发酵食品干预来改善认知结果。这可能是由于小型和短期研究数量有限,以及在人群、认知测试和干预方面存在临床异质性。因此,有必要开展进一步试验,使用足够大的样本量对临床人群中的这些干预措施进行研究。国际前瞻性系统评价注册库(PROSPERO)注册号:CRD42019137936。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验