Supplement evidence

027 / 575Microbiome

Probiotics

View my plan →

The short answer

Some named strains and doses help specific gastrointestinal outcomes.

Evidence and scope: Conditional or population-specific
This status does not grade the ingredient for every goal, outcome, or person.
Important limitation: Evidence cannot be generalized across strains, products, or broad immunity and longevity claims.
Before deciding: Usually low risk for healthy people but can cause serious infection in severely immunocompromised patients.

01 / PRACTICAL GUIDE

Dose, absorption, and combinations

These are indication-specific reference or studied ranges—not a personalized prescription. Start with the objective, then check the form, label, medicines, and health conditions.

Reference range by objective

Meal-specific digestionStrain- and indication-specific; CFU count alone is not a dose recommendation

Reference or studied range—not a personalized prescription. The product label or a clinician may specify a different dose.

Dose source ↗

More is not automatically better. A clinician or product label may specify a different amount.

Absorption / solubilityFat/water classification is not the key factor

Fat/water solubility is not the useful decision point; preparation, fluid, timing, or strain identity matters more.

How it is commonly taken

Follow the studied strain, storage condition, and timing on the evidence-based product.

Do not combine casually

Avoid unsupervised use in severe immunocompromise, central lines, or critical illness; antibiotic spacing may matter.

Dose and use source ↗

Dose and use links lead to primary or official source material. Search links are discovery tools, not proof that every returned paper applies.

02 / EVIDENCE

What the research says

We keep supportive, mixed, negative, safety, and contextual findings together. The headline never replaces the underlying papers.

4research papers in this ledger

44unique primary studies represented

11,767unique participants represented

These are audited counts for this JIVANA collection, not search-result totals. Participants are counted once when multiple papers use the same cohort; review papers are not added again to participant totals.

Open the research timelineResearch timeline

Entries are ordered by publication year. A study period appears only when the source reports it.

2023

Safety signalPMID 36806741

Epidemiology of Saccharomyces fungemia

Most reported cases had received S. boulardii; intensive care, enteral or parenteral feeding, and gastrointestinal illness were prominent risk contexts. Case reports cannot estimate incidence.

Published: 2023

Study design and methods

Design: Systematic review of reported Saccharomyces fungemia cases
Population: 108 analyzable patients with Saccharomyces fungemia
Intervention: Clinical exposure to Saccharomyces boulardii probiotics or no documented probiotic exposure
Outcome: Risk factors and outcomes of bloodstream infection

Open research record ↗

2021

Mixed or qualifiedPMID 34385227

Probiotics for the prevention of antibiotic-associated diarrhoea

Probiotics reduced antibiotic-associated diarrhea overall (RR 0.63), but benefit varied by baseline risk, dose, species, and strain; low-risk settings did not show a clear benefit.

Published: 2021n=11,305 participants42 primary studies represented

Study design and methods

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of 42 randomized trials
Population: 11,305 adults receiving antibiotics
Intervention: Multiple probiotic species, strains, and doses alongside antibiotics versus placebo or no probiotic
Outcome: Antibiotic-associated diarrhea

Funding or conflict note: The review authors declared no competing interests.

Open research record ↗

2016

Does not support the tested claimPMID 28082816

Irritable bowel syndrome symptom severity improves equally with probiotic and placebo

The prespecified overall IBS severity score improved similarly in all groups. A post hoc subgroup with greater baseline pain favored the probiotic, so it does not establish broad IBS benefit.

Published: 2016Duration: 12 weeks plus 4-week washoutn=391 participants

Study design and methods

Design: Randomized triple-blind placebo-controlled dose trial
Population: 391 adults with Rome III irritable bowel syndrome; 340 completed
Intervention: Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM at 1 billion or 10 billion CFU/day versus placebo
Outcome: IBS symptom severity, quality of life, and individual symptoms

Funding or conflict note: Several authors were current or former employees of the sponsor, DuPont Nutrition and Health.

Open research record ↗

2006

Does not support the tested claimPMID 16872374

Immunomodulating potential of supplementation with probiotics

No consistent dose-dependent improvement in the tested immune biomarkers was demonstrated, including at high doses.

Published: 2006Duration: 3 weeksn=71 participants

Study design and methods

Design: Double-blind placebo-controlled dose-response trial
Population: 71 healthy young adults
Intervention: BB-12 plus CRL-431 from 100 million to 100 billion CFU/day versus placebo
Outcome: Leukocyte activity, fecal IgA, and cytokine production

Open research record ↗

Unscreened discovery appendix—not evidence5,406 candidate publicationsSearch run: Aug 21, 2026

Complete for the displayed PubMed query at the search timestamp—not for all databases or every possible synonym. Candidates can be irrelevant, duplicate the same study, or report negative findings. They are never summed as evidence or participants until screened.

03 / SOURCES

Start with the source material

Official evidence overviewNIH Office of Dietary Supplements Live PubMed discovery searchNational Library of Medicine

The live search is for discovery only. Search-result counts change and are not included in the audited totals above.

Recent PubMed discovery recordsDirect links to the first 12 records returned by the reproducible search. These are discovery candidates—not reviewed summaries or a count of supportive findings.

04 / EXPERT CONTEXT

Expert context—not evidence

Expert positions are dated context—not scientific evidence. They never raise the evidence status or become consensus by repetition.

No direct, source-verified endorsement is currently recorded. Research authorship or discussion alone is not treated as endorsement.