Brief Article
Copyright ©2010 Baishideng.
World J Gastroenterol. Aug 21, 2010; 16(31): 3970-3978
Published online Aug 21, 2010. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i31.3970
Table 1 Methodological characteristics of the clinical trials included in this meta-analysis
TrialPatients (synbiotics/control)Characteristics of patients (synbiotics/control)InterventionControl groupLength of treatment (d)
Oláh et al[16] (UK, 2002)45 (22/23)Mean Glasgow score (2.5/2.8), mean CRP (206.5/188.7) mg/L109L. plantarum 299 + EN + 10 g oat fiberEN + heat-killed L. plantarum 299 + oat fiber7
Oláh et al[17] (UK, 2007)62 (33/29)Mean Imrie score (2.9/3.1), mean CRP (216.7/191.2) mg/LFour LAB: 1010P. pentosaceus, Leuconostoc mesenteroides, L. paracasei and L. plantarum + four bioactive fiber (Synbiotics 2000) + ENEN + four bioactive fiber7
Karakan et al[25] (Turkey, 2007)30 (15/15)Mean APACHE II score (9.4/9.6), mean CRP (232/244) mg/L24 g multi-fibers including soluble fibers and insoluble fibers + ENEN6-13
Qin et al[18] (China, 2008)74 (36/38)Mean APACHE II score (8.8/8.9), mean CRP (125/136) mg/L108L. plantarum + EN + PNPN7
Besselink et al[19] (Netherlands, 2008)296 (152/144)Mean APACHE II score (8.6/8.4), mean Imrie score (3.3/3.4), mean CRP (268/270) mg/LSix LAB: 1010L. acidophilus, L. casei, L. salivarius, L.lactis, B. bifidum, and B. lactis (Ecologic 641) + cornstarch + maltodextrins + fiber-riched ENCornstarch + maltodextrins + fiber-riched EN28
Li et al[26] (China, 2007)25 (14/11)APACHE II score 8-20Three LAB:7.2 × 107B. longum, L. bulgaricus and S. thermophilus (Golden Bifid)Water7
Wu et al[27] (China, 2009)27 (14/13)APACHE II score 8-20Three strains: > 6 × 104L. lactis + L. acidophilus and S. lactisN/A7
Table 2 Surgical outcomes from randomized studies included in this meta-analysis
TrialNo. of patientsSeptic morbidity (%)MOF (%)SIRS (%)Pancreatic infections (%)Surgical interventions (%)Hospital stay (d)Mortality (%)
Oláh et al[16]22/235 (22.7)/ 20 (87)2 (9.1)/ 2 (8.7)11 (50)/ 6 (26.1)1 (4.5)/ 7 (30.4)1 (4.5)/ 7 (30.4)13.7/21.4 (median)1 (4.5)/2 (8.7)
Oláh et al[17]33/299 (27.3)/ 15 (51.7)5 (15.1)/ 9 (31)3 (9)/ 5 (17.2)4 (12.1)/ 8 (27.6)4 (12.1)/ 7 (24.1)14.9/19.7 (median)2 (6.1)/6 (20.7)
Karakan et al[25]15/152 (13.3)/ 2 (13.3)1 (6.7)/ 2 (13.3)N/AN/AN/A10 ± 4/15 ± 62 (13.3)/4 (26.7)
Qin et al[18]36/3811 (30.6)/ 29 (76.3)4 (11.1)/ 7 (18.4)6 (16.7)/ 14 (36.8)N/AN/A20.9/24.2 (median)0 (0)/0 (0)
Besselink et al[19]152/14446 (30.3)/ 41 (28.47)33 (22)/ 15 (10)N/A21 (14)/ 14 (10)28 (18)/ 14 (10)28.9 ± 41.5/23.5 ± 25.924 (16)/9 (6)
Li et al[26]14/11N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A42 ± 5/49 ± 6.8N/A
Wu et al[27]14/13N/AN/AN/AN/AN/A34 ± 6/40 ± 65 (35.7)/6 (46.2)
Table 3 Quality assessment of the included randomized trials
TrialGeneration of randomAllocation concealmentBlindingFollow-upBaseline similarityJadad score
Oláh et al[16]UnclearUnclearDouble blindedNoSimilar4
Oláh et al[17]UnclearAdequateDouble blindedNoSimilar4
Karakan et al[25]ClearAdequateDouble blindedNoSimilar3
Qin et al[18]ClearUnclearNo blindingYesSimilar3
Besselink et al[19]ClearAdequateDouble blindedYesSimilar5
Li et al[26]UnclearUnclearNo blindingNoSimilar1
Wu et al[27]UnclearUnclearNo blindingNoSimilar1
Table 4 Surgical outcomes stratified by severity of pancreatitis in this meta-analysis
No. of studiesSynbioticControlOR (95% CI)P for effect sizeP for heterogeneity
Septic morbidity357/20058/1880.89 (0.57, 1.37)0.580.16
Pancreatic infections225/18522/1731.06 (0.58, 1.96)0.840.07
Surgical intervention232/18521/1731.07 (0.23, 4.92)0.940.04
MOF and SIRS343/20036/1880.65 (0.09, 4.44)0.660.0005
Mortality433/21425/2010.77 (0.22, 2.72)0.690.02