医疗保健中的益生菌:批判性评估》。

IF 15.1 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Annual review of medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-11 DOI:10.1146/annurev-med-042423-042315
Eamonn M Quigley, Fergus Shanahan
{"title":"医疗保健中的益生菌:批判性评估》。","authors":"Eamonn M Quigley, Fergus Shanahan","doi":"10.1146/annurev-med-042423-042315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Consumption of probiotic products continues to increase, perhaps driven by an interest in gut health. However, the field is filled with controversy, inconsistencies, misuse of terminology, and poor communication. While the probiotic concept is biologically plausible and in some cases mechanistically well established, extrapolation of preclinical results to humans has seldom been proven in well-conducted clinical trials. With noteworthy exceptions, clinical guidance has often been derived not from large, adequately powered clinical trials but rather from comparisons of disparate, small studies with insufficient power to identify the optimal strain. The separation of probiotics from live biotherapeutic products has brought some clarity from a regulatory perspective, but in both cases, consumers should expect scientific rigor and strong supporting evidence for health claims.</p>","PeriodicalId":8056,"journal":{"name":"Annual review of medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":15.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Probiotics in Health Care: A Critical Appraisal.\",\"authors\":\"Eamonn M Quigley, Fergus Shanahan\",\"doi\":\"10.1146/annurev-med-042423-042315\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Consumption of probiotic products continues to increase, perhaps driven by an interest in gut health. However, the field is filled with controversy, inconsistencies, misuse of terminology, and poor communication. While the probiotic concept is biologically plausible and in some cases mechanistically well established, extrapolation of preclinical results to humans has seldom been proven in well-conducted clinical trials. With noteworthy exceptions, clinical guidance has often been derived not from large, adequately powered clinical trials but rather from comparisons of disparate, small studies with insufficient power to identify the optimal strain. The separation of probiotics from live biotherapeutic products has brought some clarity from a regulatory perspective, but in both cases, consumers should expect scientific rigor and strong supporting evidence for health claims.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8056,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annual review of medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":15.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annual review of medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-042423-042315\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annual review of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-042423-042315","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

或许是出于对肠道健康的关注,益生菌产品的消费量持续增长。然而,这一领域充满了争议、不一致、术语误用和沟通不畅。虽然益生菌的概念在生物学上是合理的,在某些情况下在机理上也是成熟的,但将临床前的结果外推到人体却很少在进行良好的临床试验中得到证实。除了一些值得注意的例外情况,临床指导往往不是来自于大型、有充分支持力的临床试验,而是来自于对不同的小型研究的比较,而这些研究的支持力不足以确定最佳菌株。从监管的角度来看,益生菌与活体生物治疗产品的分离带来了一定的清晰度,但在这两种情况下,消费者都应期待科学的严谨性和健康声明的有力支持证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Probiotics in Health Care: A Critical Appraisal.

Consumption of probiotic products continues to increase, perhaps driven by an interest in gut health. However, the field is filled with controversy, inconsistencies, misuse of terminology, and poor communication. While the probiotic concept is biologically plausible and in some cases mechanistically well established, extrapolation of preclinical results to humans has seldom been proven in well-conducted clinical trials. With noteworthy exceptions, clinical guidance has often been derived not from large, adequately powered clinical trials but rather from comparisons of disparate, small studies with insufficient power to identify the optimal strain. The separation of probiotics from live biotherapeutic products has brought some clarity from a regulatory perspective, but in both cases, consumers should expect scientific rigor and strong supporting evidence for health claims.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annual review of medicine
Annual review of medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
24.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: The Annual Review of Medicine, which has been published since 1950, focuses on important advancements in diverse areas of medicine. These include AIDS/HIV, cardiology, clinical pharmacology, dermatology, endocrinology/metabolism, gastroenterology, genetics, immunology, infectious disease, neurology, oncology/hematology, pediatrics, psychiatry, pulmonology, reproductive medicine, and surgery. The journal's current volume has transitioned from a gated access model to an open access model through the Annual Reviews' Subscribe to Open program. All articles published in the journal are now available under a CC BY license.
期刊最新文献
Endoscopic Approaches for Managing Small Intestinal Disease. Care Models for Cancer Survivors. Candida auris: Epidemiology and Antifungal Strategy. Application and Expectations for Immune Checkpoint Blockade of LAG3 and TIGIT. New Approaches to Respiratory Syncytial Virus Prevention and Treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1