Skip to main content
. 2021 Aug 12;11(8):e043054. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043054

Table 2.

Subgroup analyses by species or genus (Forest plots for all subgroup analyses available in online supplemental file 1)

Species Studies (N) Effect size
L. acidophilus 18 (6077) RR=0.66 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.80), p<0.0001
L. bulgaricus 7 (1996) RR=0.60 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.97), p=0.04
L. casei 11 (3382) RR=0.59 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.83), p=0.003
L. helveticus 2 (239) Not significant
L. paracasei 3 (665) RR=0.60 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.88), p=0.01
L. plantarum 3 (325) Not significant
L. reuteri 1 (23) Not significant
L. rhamnosus 5 (779) RR=0.71 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.97), p=0.03
Lactobacillus spp 28 (7851) RR=0.63 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.76), p<0.00001
S. boulardii 9 (1827) RR=0.63 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.86), p=0.004
B. animalis ssp lactis 6 (1351) RR=0.70 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.91), p=0.009
B. bifidum 4 (3165) Not significant
B. licheniformis 1 (181) RR=0.39 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.79), p=0.009
B. longum 4 (366) RR=0.46 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.73), p=0.001
B. subtilis 1 (271) RR=0.35 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.62), p=0.0004
S. thermophilus 6 (1917) Not significant
C. butyricum 1 (19) Not significant
B. clausii 1 (130) RR=0.61 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.89), p=0.01

RR, risk ratio.