Table 3.

Pairwise comparisons of differential probiotics and rifaximin.

SOB	–	–	–	–	–	0.11 (0.02–0.83)	–	–	–
0.24 (0.03–1.81)	Rifaximin	–	–	–	–	0.47 (0.35–0.62)	–	–	–
0.19 (0.02–1.42)	0.77 (0.48–1.25)	LABST	–	–	–	0.61 (0.41–0.89)	–	–	–
0.18 (0.02–1.32)	0.73 (0.48–1.11)	0.94 (0.57–1.55)	GAO	–	–	0.64 (0.47–0.88)	–	–	–
0.14 (0.02–1.00)	0.56 (0.42–0.76)	0.73 (0.49–1.09)	0.77 (0.56–1.07)	SBC	–	0.83 (0.75–0.93)	–	–	–
0.13 (0.02–0.96)	0.54 (0.39–0.75)	0.70 (0.46–1.07)	0.74 (0.52–1.05)	0.96 (0.78–1.18)	LRG	0.87 (0.73–1.04)	–	–	–
0.11 (0.02–0.83)	0.47 (0.35–0.62)	0.61 (0.41–0.89)	0.64 (0.47–0.88)	0.83 (0.75–0.93)	0.87 (0.73–1.04)	Placebo	0.97 (0.75–1.27)	0.84 (0.37–1.91)	0.88 (0.64–1.21)
0.11 (0.01–0.82)	0.46 (0.31–0.67)	0.59 (0.37–0.94)	0.63 (0.42–0.94)	0.81 (0.61–1.08)	0.85 (0.62–1.17)	0.97 (0.75–1.27)	ESCF	–	–
0.10 (0.01–0.82)	0.40 (0.17–0.94)	0.51 (0.21–1.27)	0.54 (0.23–1.30)	0.70 (0.31–1.61)	0.73 (0.32–1.70)	0.84 (0.37–1.91)	0.86 (0.37–2.05)	LHG	–
0.10 (0.01–0.75)	0.41 (0.27–0.63)	0.53 (0.32–0.88)	0.57 (0.36–0.88)	0.73 (0.53–1.02)	0.77 (0.53–1.10)	0.88 (0.64–1.21)	0.90 (0.60–1.36)	1.04 (0.43–2.51)	LAN

The top half showed the estimates of direct comparisons between two treatments, and the bottom half showed the estimates of network meta-analysis. Comparisons between treatments should be read from left to right, and the comparison estimate is in the cell between the column-defining treatment and the row-defining treatment. RRs > 1 favors row-defining treatment. The sequence of the treatments was arranged according to the P-scores, and the treatment with the highest P-score was arranged at left.

ESCF = Entero. faecium SF68 + S. cerevisiae CNCM I-4444 + fructo-oliogosaccharide, GAO = galacto-oligosaccharide, LABST = L. acidophilus + L. bulgaricus + Bifido.bifidum + Strept. Thermophilus, LAN = L. acidophilus nr, LHG = L. helveticus ATCC33409 + L. gasseri ATCC4962, LRG = L. rhamnosus GG, RR = relative ratio, SBC = S. boulardii CNCM I-745, SOB = sodium butyrate.