<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><sec id="j_FON-2019-0018_s_006_w2aab3b7b4b1b6b1aab1c16b1Aa"><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews/meta-analysis of the effectiveness of probiotics against irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) using the accepted methodological quality assessment scale AMSTAR and explored the factors that influenced the quality of methodology. It was designed to provide a reference for future research and systematic reviews/metaanalysis.</p></sec><sec id="j_FON-2019-0018_s_007_w2aab3b7b4b1b6b1aab1c16b2Aa"><h3>Methods</h3><p>The methodological quality of existing systematic reviews/meta-analysis was evaluated using the AMSTAR scale. Influencing factors of methodological quality were statistically analyzed using RevMan 5.3 software. The included systematic reviews/metaanalysis must include the following characteristics: (1) methods using systematic evaluation/meta-analysis, (2) probiotic intervention, and (3) language limitation to Chinese and English.</p></sec><sec id="j_FON-2019-0018_s_008_w2aab3b7b4b1b6b1aab1c16b3Aa"><h3>Results</h3><p>The AMSTAR score was 5–9 (7.42 ± 1.22), and the quality is above average. The factors affecting the methodological quality are the number of authors and whether they cooperate with the institution.</p></sec><sec id="j_FON-2019-0018_s_009_w2aab3b7b4b1b6b1aab1c16b4Aa"><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Studies have shown that current systematic reviews/meta-analysis of the effectiveness of probiotics on IBS does not fully comply with methodological quality standards, and therefore the methodological quality of research in this area needs to be strengthened. To better clarify how probiotics affect IBS, future systematic reviews and meta-analyses should not only follow methodological quality standards but also include more effective outcome measures, and they should focus more on the discussion of research results. We look forward to the development of higher-quality randomized controlled trials in the future.</p></sec></abstract>

ObjectiveThis study assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews/meta-analysis of the effectiveness of probiotics against irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) using the accepted methodological quality assessment scale AMSTAR and explored the factors that influenced the quality of methodology. It was designed to provide a reference for future research and systematic reviews/metaanalysis.MethodsThe methodological quality of existing systematic reviews/meta-analysis was evaluated using the AMSTAR scale. Influencing factors of methodological quality were statistically analyzed using RevMan 5.3 software. The included systematic reviews/metaanalysis must include the following characteristics: (1) methods using systematic evaluation/meta-analysis, (2) probiotic intervention, and (3) language limitation to Chinese and English.ResultsThe AMSTAR score was 5–9 (7.42 ± 1.22), and the quality is above average. The factors affecting the methodological quality are the number of authors and whether they cooperate with the institution.ConclusionsStudies have shown that current systematic reviews/meta-analysis of the effectiveness of probiotics on IBS does not fully comply with methodological quality standards, and therefore the methodological quality of research in this area needs to be strengthened. To better clarify how probiotics affect IBS, future systematic reviews and meta-analyses should not only follow methodological quality standards but also include more effective outcome measures, and they should focus more on the discussion of research results. We look forward to the development of higher-quality randomized controlled trials in the future.

Effectiveness of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome: methodological quality of meta-analyses and systematic reviews

Frontiers of Nursing

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

ObjectiveThis study assessed the methodological quality of systematic reviews/meta-analysis of the effectiveness of probiotics against irritable bowel syndrome...

First author	Year	Country	Studies included	Outcome indicators

Corbitt et al¹⁴	2018	Australia	24	①②
Ortiz-Lucas M¹⁵	2013	Spain	10	①②③
Didari T¹⁶	2015	Iran, China	15	①②
Zhang Y¹⁷	2016	China	21	①②③④
Yuan F¹⁸	2017	USA	5	①②
Ford A C¹⁹	2014	USA, UK, Canada	43	①②
Tiequn B²⁰	2015	China	6	①②④
Li DQ²¹	2016	China	5	①②④⑤⑥
Zhao ZF²²	2014	China	19	①②③④⑤
Shu XC²³	2012	China	17	①②④
Yao L²⁴	2012	China	12	①②⑥
Yue²⁵	2015	China	17	①②③⑤
Lan Y²⁶	2011	China	32	①②

AMSTAR question	Yes	Part	No

1. Was an a priori design provided?	12	1	0
2. Was a comprehensive literature search performed?	5	5	3
3. Is it possible to replicate the search?	8	5	0
4. Did the inclusion criteria permit gray literature?	0	10	3
5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided?	0	0	13
6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided?	13	0	0
7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented?	8	5	0
8. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate?	13	0	0
9. Was the effect size index chosen justified statistically?	9	4	0
10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed?	10	0	3
11. Was the conflict of interest included?	6	0	7

Effectiveness of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome: methodological quality of meta-analyses and systematic reviews

Article Category: Original article

Published Online: Jul 10, 2019

Page range: 115 - 121

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/FON-2019-0018

Keywords
probiotics, irritable bowel syndrome, systematic review, meta-analysis, methodological quality

© 2019 Yuan Jia et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Summary of the 13 meta-analyses or systematic reviews that qualified for this review.

Quality of meta-analyses and systematic reviews.

Effectiveness of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome: methodological quality of meta-analyses and systematic reviews

Article Category: Original article

Published Online: Jul 10, 2019

Page range: 115 - 121

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/FON-2019-0018

Keywordsprobiotics, irritable bowel syndrome, systematic review, meta-analysis, methodological quality

© 2019 Yuan Jia et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Summary of the 13 meta-analyses or systematic reviews that qualified for this review.

Quality of meta-analyses and systematic reviews.

Keywords
probiotics, irritable bowel syndrome, systematic review, meta-analysis, methodological quality