Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of the studies reviewed

From: Alterations in fecal microbiota composition by probiotic supplementation in healthy adults: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Study

Participant characteristics

Intervention

Design

Microbiomics

Sample size calculation

Probiotic effects on fecal microbiota compared to placebo

Lahti et al. 2013 [22]

25/25 (72 %)

23–55 years

Finland

L. rhamnosus GG ATCC53103 (1.55 × 1010 CFU) in 250 mL milk-based fruit drink

Double-blinded, parallel, two-armed, placebo (drink) controlled (21 days)

16S rRNA (regions V1 and V6); HITchip based characterization of >1000 microbial species-like phylotypes

Post hoc

↔ Composition of the fecal microbiota

↔ Stability of the fecal microbiota quantified by inter-individual and intra-individual correlations within and between time points

Rampelli et al. 2013 [23]

32/32 (59 %)

71–88 years

Italy

B. longum Bar33 and L. helveticus Bar13 (109 CFU) in biscuit

Double-blinded, parallel, two-armed, placebo (biscuit) controlled (30 days)

16S rRNA (region unknown);

HTF-Microbi.Array based characterization of 31 phylogenetically related groups

No

↔ Relative abundance of 31 phylogenetically related groups

Ferrario et al. 2014 [27]

22/34* (56 %)

23–55 years

Italy

L. paracasei DG (>2.4 × 1010 CFU) in capsules

Double-blinded, cross-over, placebo (capsules) controlled (two 28-day intervention periods with a 28-day wash-out)

16S rRNA (region V3) sequencing on Ion Torrent platform

No

↔ α-diversity

Modified β diversity (with absolute distances higher for the probiotic than for the placebo treatments)

Bjerg et al. 2015 [19]

20/64* (50 %)

20–45 years

Denmark

L. casei W8® (1010 CFU) in capsules

Double-blinded, parallel, two-armed, placebo (capsules) controlled (28 days)

16S rRNA (regions V3 and V4) sequencing on Roche 454 pyrosequencing platform

No

↔ α- and β-diversity

Brahe et al. 2015 [20]

34/58* (100 %)

40–70 years

Denmark

L. paracasei F19 (9.4 × 1010 CFU) or flaxseed mucilage (10 g) in sachets

Single-blinded, parallel, three-armed, placebo (sachets) controlled (42 days)

Quantitative metagenomics

on a SOLiD 5500×l platform

Yes

↔ Bacterial gene count (richness) and abundance of specific bacterial genes compared to placebo

Hanifi et al. 2015 [21]

37/81* (52 %)

19–49 years

United States

Bacillus subtilis R0179

(0.1 × 109, 1.0 × 109, and 10 × 109 CFU, respectively) in capsules

Double-blinded, parallel, four-armed, placebo (capsules) controlled (28 days)

16S rRNA (regions V1 to V3) pyrosequencing

No

↔ β-diversity and OTU based richness

Simon et al. 2015 [24]

21/21 (52 %)

40–65 years

Germany

L. reuteri SD5865 (2 × 1010 viable cells) in capsules

Double-blinded, parallel, two-armed, placebo (capsules) controlled (28 days)

16S rRNA (regions V5 and V6) sequencing on Illumina MiSeq platform

Yes

↔ α- and β-diversity

  1. Participant characteristics are number of participants with microbiome data/number of participants included in the study. Participant characteristics (% women and age range of participants in years) are based upon number of participants included in the study. CFU, colony-forming units. OTU, operational taxonomic unit. ↔ indicates no difference between the probiotic group and placebo. ↑ indicates an increase in the probiotic group compared to placebo. ↓ indicates a decrease in the probiotic group compared to placebo. P values are unadjusted for multiple testing. *Performed next-generation sequencing on fecal samples from a subgroup of the included individuals. In the study by Ferrario et al., 22 participants (of 34) completed the study. Bjerg et al. selected 10 (of 32) placebo-treated and 10 (of 32) probiotic-treated participants with the highest triacylglycerol concentration in the blood at week 0. The study by Brahe et al. had a third intervention arm not relevant for the present study where the number of participants were approximately two-thirds of the total number of participants included in the study. Hanifi et al. selected 20 (all) placebo-treated and 17 (of 20) probiotic-treated participants from the group with the highest dose (10 × 109 CFU) of the probiotic treatment