Front. Microbiol. Frontiers in Microbiology Front. Microbiol. 1664-302X Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1345278 Microbiology Systematic Review Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia with probiotics: an overview of systematic reviews Han Minjuan 1 Wang Ke 2 Sun Lei 3 Liu Wang 1 Dong Wanhu 1 * 1Affiliated Hospital of Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine, Xianyang, China 2Yan'an University Xianyang Hospital, Xianyang, China 3Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine, Xianyang, China

Edited by: Jesús Muñoz-Rojas, Meritorious Autonomous University of Puebla, Mexico

Reviewed by: Ricardo Carreno-Lopez, Benemérita Autonomous University of Puebla, Mexico; Julia María Alatorre Cruz, Meritorious Autonomous University of Puebla, Mexico; Andrés Corral Lugo, Carlos III Health Institute (ISCIII), Spain

 *Correspondence: Wanhu Dong, doctordong123@sina.com 14 02 2024 2024 15 1345278 27 11 2023 31 01 2024 Copyright © 2024 Han, Wang, Sun, Liu and Dong. 2024 Han, Wang, Sun, Liu and Dong

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

 Background

Probiotics has been used as an adjuvant therapy for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). This study aimed to systematically compile, evaluate, and synthesize previous systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) on the prevention of VAP with probiotics.

 Methods

The methodological quality, reporting quality, and evidence quality of enrolled studies were, respectively evaluated by Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklists, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

 Results

Thirteen eligible publications were analyzed in this overview. The included studies were rated as generally low methodological quality owing to the lack of a registered protocol or a list of exclusion criteria. The inadequate quality of the reports was demonstrated by the lack of reporting on the registration protocols, the lack of reporting on the search strategy, and the lack of reporting on the additional analyses. For GRADE, there were 36.17% (17/47) outcomes graded to be of moderate quality, 42.55% (20/47) to be of low quality, and 21.28% (10/47) to be of very low quality.

 Conclusion

Probiotics may be associated with reduced incidence of VAP. However, caution should be exercised when recommending probiotics for the prevention of VAP owing to the poor quality of the current evidence.

 treatment probiotics ventilator-associated pneumonia evidence adjunctive 82205268 2023132 National Natural Science Foundation of China10.13039/501100001809 Shaanxi Provincial Sports Bureau section-at-acceptance Infectious Agents and Disease Introduction

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common pneumonia occurring more than 48 h after endotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit (ICU) (Metersky and Kalil, 2018). The duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) is positively correlated with the incidence of VAP (François et al., 2019). VAP has been reported to occur in approximately 40% of patients experiencing MV (Goutier et al., 2014; Ferrer and Torres, 2018). By prolonging the duration of MV and ICU stays and increasing antibiotic demands, VAP usually negatively impacts the prognosis of critically ill patients (Warren et al., 2003). A recent study performed in Japan revealed that patients with VAP typically spent $67,080 during their hospital stays, a substantial premium above individuals without VAP ($32,196) (Nanao et al., 2021).

Early and widely used approaches included selective oral decontamination or antibiotic-selective GI decontamination in an attempt to reduce the incidence of VAP by manipulating the microbiota using pharmacologic strategies (Maselli and Restrepo, 2011). The current guideline, which was updated 6 years ago, are ambiguous in recommending these two strategies because neither approach has been conclusively proven to have definitive efficacy (Torres et al., 2017). The application of probiotics is a recently emerging strategy that may be beneficial in regulating microbiota imbalances in critically ill patients (Shimizu et al., 2021). Probiotics are commercially available live microbial preparations defined as “living microorganisms that confer health benefits to the host when administered in sufficient amount” (Hill et al., 2014). To date, there have been a number of overlapping systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) evaluating the efficacy of probiotics in the prevention of VAP (Siempos et al., 2010; Gu et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2013; Bo et al., 2014; Weng et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2018; Batra et al., 2020; Su et al., 2020; Ji et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2021; Cheema et al., 2022; Song et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2022). However, evidence from these SRs/MAs has not been uniform. In evidence-based medicine, SRs/MAs are regarded as the highest level of evidence (Chen et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2022). High-quality SRs/MAs contribute to the production of trustworthy evidence, whereas low-quality SRs/MAs may inadvertently influence decisions (Huang et al., 2021, 2022). Therefore, this study aimed to systematically compile, evaluate, and synthesize evidence from previous SRs/MAs on the prevention of VAP.

 Methods Included and excluded criteria

We considered the following criteria for inclusion: (a) type of literature was limited to SRs/MAs; (b) critically ill patients who received MV; (c) probiotics compared to placebo or usual care; and (d) incidence of VAP, ICU mortality, hospital mortality, duration of MV, length of ICU stay, and length of hospital stay were used as outcomes. We considered the following criteria for exclusion: (a) studies not related to the topic; (b) conference reports, protocols; and (c) no valid data available.

 Strategy for searching

Searching was performed in Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PubMed. The databases were searched from the time they were first created until November 13, 2023. We used a mix of free keywords and Mesh phrases to perform our search. Keywords used for search included “ventilator-associated pneumonia,” “probiotics,” “systematic review,” and “meta-Analyses.” The PubMed search strategy is displayed in Table 1.

Search strategy for PubMed.

Query Search term
# 1 Ventilator-associated pneumonia [Mesh]
# 2 Ventilator-associated pneumonia [Title/Abstract] OR ventilator* [Title/Abstract] OR respirator* [Title/Abstract]
# 3 #1 OR #2
# 4 Probiotics [Mesh]
# 5 Probiotic [Title/Abstract] OR beneficial bacteria [Title/Abstract] OR microecological preparation [Title/Abstract] OR lactobacillus [Title/Abstract] OR streptococcus thermophilus [Title/Abstract] OR bifidobacterium [Title/Abstract] OR clostridium butyricum [Title/Abstract] OR saccharomyces [Title/Abstract] OR bacillus [Title/Abstract]
# 6 #4 OR #5
# 7 Meta-analysis as Topic [Mesh]
# 8 Systematic review [Title/Abstract] OR meta-analyses [Title/Abstract] OR meta analyses [Title/Abstract] OR meta-analysis OR metaanalysis [Title/Abstract]
# 9 #7 OR #8
# 8 #3 AND #6 AND #9
Data collection and extraction

Data collection and extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. Prior to reviewing the complete text of possibly eligible reviews to ascertain whether they matched the inclusion criteria, the abstract and title of the literature were first read. Publication year, authors, nation, risk of bias, interventions, methods of quality evaluation, and a summary of the intervention effects were retrieved for the included reviews.

 Methodological evaluation

Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool was used independently by two reviewers to assess the methodological quality of the included reviews (Shea et al., 2017). In AMSTAR-2, there are 16 items, of which seven are key items. The items can be rated on three levels: “yes,” “partially yes,” and “no” (Shea et al., 2017).

 Reporting quality appraisal

Two reviewers independently assessed the reporting quality of each included review based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklists (Moher et al., 2009). There are 27 checklists in PRISMA, each rated either “no” (not reported), “partially yes” (partially reported), or “yes” (fully reported) (Moher et al., 2009).

 Evidence quality evaluation

Two reviewers independently graded the evidence quality of the included reviews using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system (Atkins et al., 2004). There are several possible causes of evidence downgrading, including indirectness, inconsistency, publication bias, imprecision, and bias risk (Atkins et al., 2004).

 Results Selection of literature

Databases provided 611 potential publications, of which 100 were duplicated. Our review of titles and abstracts revealed 493 records to be excluded. For full-text evaluation, the remaining 18 records were retrieved. As a result, 13 publications (Siempos et al., 2010; Gu et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2013; Bo et al., 2014; Weng et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2018; Batra et al., 2020; Su et al., 2020; Ji et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2021; Cheema et al., 2022; Song et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2022) were included in this review. The study selection process is depicted in Figure 1.

Flow diagram of the literature selection process.

 Study characteristics

Inclusion of SRs/MAs were published between 2010 and 2023 (Table 2). Of the 13 included studies, nine were conducted in China, while the remaining four were conducted in the United States, Brazil, India, and Pakistan. The smallest sample size was found in five trials with 795 cases, while the largest was found in 23 trials with 5,543 cases. Participants in experimental group received probiotics, whereas participants in control group received placebos. Summary of intervention of the included reviews is given in Table 3.

Characteristics of the included reviews.

Studies Country Trials (subjects) Experimental intervention Control intervention Outcomes Conclusion summary
Siempos et al. (2010) United States 5 (795) Probiotics Placebo ①, ③, ④, ⑤, ⑦ Administration of probiotics is associated with lower incidence of VAP than control.
Gu et al. (2012) China 7 (1,142) Probiotics Placebo ①, ②, ③, ④,⑤, ⑥, ⑦ The limited evidence suggests that probiotics show no beneficial effect in patients who are mechanically ventilated.
Wang et al. (2013) China 5 (844) Probiotics Placebo ①, ②, ③, ⑤, ⑥, Probiotic prophylaxis of VAP remained inconclusive and it failed to improve the prognosis of general mechanically ventilated patients.
Bo et al. (2014) Brazil 8 (1,083) Probiotics Placebo ①, ②, ③, ④, ⑤, Evidence suggests that use of probiotics is associated with a reduction in the incidence of VAP.
Weng et al. (2017) China 13 (1,969) Probiotics Placebo ①, ②, ③, ④, ⑤, ⑥ Probiotics could reduce the incidence of VAP in mechanically ventilated patients. It seems likely that probiotics provide clinical benefits for mechanically ventilated patients.
Chen et al. (2018) China 10 (1,403) Probiotics Placebo ①, ②, ③, ④, ⑤ Reduced incidence of VAP in ICU patients given probiotics was found. It seems likely that probiotics provide clinical benefits.
Su et al. (2020) China 14 (1,975) Probiotics Placebo ①, ②, ④, ⑤ The meta-analysis results indicated that the administration of probiotics significantly reduced the incidence of VAP.
Batra et al. (2020) India 9 (1,172) Probiotics Placebo ①,③, ④,⑤, ⑥ Our meta-analysis shows that probiotic administration has a promising role in lowering the incidence of VAP.
Zhao et al. (2021) China 15 (2,039) Probiotics Placebo ①, ⑤ The probiotics helped to prevent VAP without impacting the duration of MV, length of ICU stay or mortality.
Ji et al. (2021) China 20 (2,428) Probiotics Placebo ①, ④, ⑤, ⑥ Probiotics can reduce the incidence of VAP and reduce oropharyngeal and gastric bacterial colonization.
Cheema et al. (2022) Pakistan 18 (4,893) Probiotics Placebo ①, ②, ③, ④, ⑤, ⑥, ⑦ Probiotics may reduce the incidence of VAP but due to the low quality of pooled evidence, the use of probiotics warrants caution.
Sun et al. (2022) China 23 (5,543) Probiotics Placebo ①, ④ The current evidences suggested that prophylactic administration of probiotic might be utilized as a preventive method for VAP in patients who required mechanical ventilation.
Song et al. (2022) China 15 (4,693) Probiotics Placebo ①, ②, ④,⑤ Probiotics are associated with a reduction in VAP, as well as the duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, and bacterial colonization.

①: Incidence of VAP; ②: ICU mortality; ③: Hospital mortality; ④: Duration of MV; ⑤: Length of ICU stay; ⑥: Length of hospital stay; ⑦: Adverse events.

Summary of intervention of the included reviews.

Studies Probiotic Comparison Duration
Type Dose Type Dose
Siempos et al. (2010) Lactobacillus casei rhamnosus, Lactobacillus plantarum 299 1 × 109 CFU, 1 × 1010 CFU Placebo Not applicable 1–2 times daily, 15–28 days
Gu et al. (2012) Lactobacillus casei rhamnosu, Lactobacillus plantarum 299, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG 1–5 × 109 CFU, 1 × 1010 CFU Placebo Not applicable 1–2 times daily, 15–28 days
Wang et al. (2013) Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus bulgaricus 2 × 109 CFU, 2 × 1010 CFU Placebo Not applicable 1–2 times daily, 15–28 days
Bo et al. (2014) Lactobacillus casei rhamnosus, Lactobacillus plantarum, Bifidobacterium longum, Lactobacillus bulgaricus, Streptococcus thermophilus 2 × 109 CFU, 1 × 1010 CFU Placebo Not applicable 1–3 times daily, 15–28 days
Weng et al. (2017) L. casei, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidobacterium bifidum 0.5 × 108 CFU, 1–5 × 109 CFU, 2 × 1010 CFU Placebo Not applicable 1–2 times daily, 15–28 days
Chen et al. (2018) Pediococcus pentoseceus, Leuconostoc mesenteroides, L. paracasei ssp., L. plantaru, Lactobacillus casei rhamnosu, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidobacterium bifidum 2 × 109 CFU, 1 × 1010 CFU Placebo Not applicable 1–2 times daily, 15–28 days
Su et al. (2020) L. casei rhamnosus, Lactobacillus plantarum 299, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Lactobacillus casei, 2 × 109 CFU, 1–2 × 1010 CFU,1 × 1011 CFU Placebo Not applicable 1–3 times daily, 14–90 days
Batra et al. (2020) Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidobacterium bifidum 0.5 × 107 CFU, 0.5 × 108 CFU, 2 × 109 CFU, 2 × 1010 CFU Placebo Not applicable 1–3 times daily, 14–28 days
Zhao et al. (2021) Lactobacillus plantarum 299, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Lactobacillus casei, Lactococcus raffinolactis, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidobacterium bifidum 1–2 × 109 CFU, 1–2 × 1010 CFU Placebo, no placebo Not applicable 1–3 times daily, 1–4 weeks
Ji et al. (2021) Lactobacillus casei, Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Enterococcus faecalis 1–5 × 109 CFU, 1 × 1010 CFU Placebo, no placebo Not applicable 1–3 times daily, 14–21 days
Cheema et al. (2022) Lactobacillus plantarum 299, Lactobacillus, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Enterococcus faecalis 1–3 × 109 CFU, 1 × 1010 CFU Placebo, no placebo Not applicable 1–3 times daily, 1–4 weeks
Sun et al. (2022) Lactobacillus casei, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus Lcr35, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Bifidobacterium breve, Lactobacillus plantarum 299 5 × 109 CFU, 1 × 1010 CFU Placebo Not applicable 1–2 times daily, 28–60 days
Song et al. (2022) Lactobacillus casei, Lactiplantibacillus paraplantarum, Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus, Bifdobacterium, Streptococcus thermophiles 2–8 × 109 CFU, 1 × 1010 CFU Placebo, no placebo Not applicable 1–2 times daily, 1–4 weeks
Methodological evaluation

The AMSTAR-2 assesses one SR/MA as high quality, while the rest were low quality or very low quality (Table 4). Significant deficiencies in methodological quality were demonstrated by the lack of registration protocols (Q2), the lack of exhaustive search strategies (Q4), and the lack of excluded literature lists (Q7). A more detailed explanation can be found in Table 4.

Quality assessment of the included reviews by the AMSTAR-2 tool.

Author, Year AMSTAR-2 Quality
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16
Siempos et al. (2010) Y N Y PY Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Very low
Gu et al. (2012) Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Very low
Wang et al. (2013) Y N Y PY Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Very low
Bo et al. (2014) Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y High
Weng et al. (2017) Y N Y PY Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Very low
Chen et al. (2018) Y N Y PY Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Very low
Su et al. (2020) Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Low
Batra et al. (2020) Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Low
Zhao et al. (2021) Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Low
Ji et al. (2021) Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Low
Cheema et al. (2022) Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Low
Sun et al. (2022) Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Very low
Song et al. (2022) Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Low

Y, Yes; PY, Partial yes; N, No.

 Reporting quality appraisal

Reporting quality was generally well, with most SRs/MAs following the PRISMA (Table 5). The inadequate quality of the reports was demonstrated by the lack of reporting on the registration protocols (Q5), the lack of reporting on the search strategy (Q8), the lack of reporting on the additional analyses of the methodology section (Q16), and the lack of reporting on the additional analyses of the results section (Q23). A more detailed explanation can be found in Table 5.

Results of the reporting quality.

Section/topic Items Siempos et al. (2010) Gu et al. (2012) Wang et al. (2013) Bo et al. (2014) Weng et al. (2017) Chen et al. (2018) Su et al. (2020) Batra et al. (2020) Zhao et al. (2021) Ji et al. (2021) Cheema et al. (2022) Sun et al. (2022) Song et al. (2022) Compliance (%)
Title Q1. Title Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Abstract Q2. Structured summary Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Introduction Q3. Rationale Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Q4. Objectives Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Methods Q5. Protocol and registration N N N Y N N N Y Y Y Y N Y 46.15%
Q6. Eligibility criteria Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Q7. Information sources Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Q8. Search PY Y PY Y PY PY Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 30.77%
Q9. Study selection Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Q10. Data collection process Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Q11. Data items Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Q12. Risk of bias in individual studies Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Q13. Summary measures Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Q14. Synthesis of results Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Q15. Risk of bias across studies Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Q16. Additional analyses N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y 69.23%
Results Q17. Study selection Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Q18. Study characteristics Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Q19. Risk of bias within studies Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Q20. Results of individual studies Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Q21. Synthesis of results Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Q22. Risk of bias across studies Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Q23. Additional analysis N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y 69.23%
Discussion Q24. Summary of evidence Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Q25. Limitations Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Q26. Conclusions Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
Funding Q27. Funding Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%

Y, Yes; PY, Partial yes; N, No.

 Evidence quality evaluation

The GRADE system assessed 47 outcomes related to the prevention of VAP with probiotics. There were 36.17% (17/47) outcomes graded to be of moderate quality, 42.55% (20/47) to be of low quality, and 21.28% (10/47) to be of very low quality. Evidence was destroyed primarily because of bias risk, heterogeneity, and imprecision. A more detailed explanation can be found in Table 6.

Results of evidence quality.

Review Outcomes № of trails Certainty assessment № of patients Relative effect(95% CI) Quality
Limitations Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision Publication bias Experimental Control
Siempos et al. (2010) Incidence of VAP 5 Seriousa No No No No 316 373 OR 0.61 [0.41, 0.91] ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
ICU mortality 4 Seriousa No No Seriousc No 214 267 OR 0.75 [0.47, 1.21] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
Gu et al. (2012) Incidence of VAP 7 Seriousa No No No No 576 566 OR 0.82 [0.55, 1.24] ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
ICU mortality 4 Seriousa No No No No 373 354 OR 0.90 [0.65, 1.27] ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
Hospital mortality 4 Seriousa No No Seriousc No 257 256 OR 0.71 [0.48, 1.07] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
Wang et al. (2013) Incidence of VAP 5 Seriousa No No No No 423 421 OR 0.94 [0.85, 1.04] ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
Bo et al. (2014) Incidence of VAP 8 Seriousa No No No No 479 539 OR 0.70 [0.52, 0.95] ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
ICU mortality 5 Seriousa No No Seriousc No 325 378 OR 0.84 [0.58, 1.22] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
Hospital mortality 4 Seriousa No No Seriousc No 267 257 OR 0.78 [0.54, 1.14] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
Length of ICU stay 4 Seriousa No No Seriousc No 204 192 MD -1.60 [−6.53, 3.33] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
Duration of MV 2 Seriousa No No Seriousc No 103 100 MD -6.15 [−18.77, 6.47] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
Weng et al. (2017) Incidence of VAP 13 Seriousa No No No No 956 1,013 RR 0.73 [0.60, 0.89] ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
ICU mortality 6 Seriousa No No Seriousc No 443 495 RR 0.97 [0.74, 1.27] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
Hospital mortality 6 Seriousa No No Seriousc No 440 437 RR 0.81 [0.65, 1.02] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
Length of ICU stay 5 Seriousa Seriousb No Seriousc No 274 264 MD -2.40 [−6.75, 1.95] ⨁⨁◯◯◯
Very low
Length of hospital stay 4 Seriousa Seriousb No No c No 343 339 MD -1.34 [−6.21, 3.54] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
Chen et al. (2018) Incidence of VAP 10 Seriousa No No No No 672 731 OR 0.69 [0.54, 0.88] ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
ICU mortality 6 Seriousa No No No No 443 495 OR 0.95 [0.67, 1.33] ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
Hospital mortality 5 Seriousa No No No No 385 374 OR 0.86 [0.62, 1.18] ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
Length of ICU stay 4 Seriousa Seriousb No Seriousc No 221 211 MD -1.74 [−6.74, 3.27] ⨁⨁◯◯◯
Very low
Duration of MV 2 Seriousa Seriousb No Seriousc No 109 106 MD -6.21 [−18.83, 6.41] ⨁⨁◯◯◯
Very low
Su et al. (2020) Incidence of VAP 13 Seriousa No No No No 914 961 OR 0.62 [0.45, 0.85] ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
ICU mortality 6 Seriousa No No No No 469 524 OR 0.95 [0.67, 1.34] ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
Length of ICU stay 10 Seriousa Seriousb No No No 682 736 MD -1.29 [−4.74, 2.15] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
Duration of MV 8 Seriousa Seriousb No No No 569 268 MD -2.37 [−4.67, −0.08] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
Batra et al. (2020) Incidence of VAP 9 Seriousa No No No No 564 563 OR 0.70 [0.56, 0.88] ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
Length of ICU stay 8 Seriousa Seriousb No No No 538 534 MD -4.20 [−6.73, −1.66] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
Length of hospital stay 4 Seriousa Seriousb No Seriousc No 324 324 MD -1.94 [−7.17, 3.28] ⨁⨁◯◯◯
Very low
Duration of MV 5 Seriousa Seriousb No Seriousc No 399 400 MD -3.75 [−6.93, −0.58] ⨁⨁◯◯◯
Very low
Zhao et al. (2021) Incidence of VAP 9 Seriousa No No No No 985 1,054 RR 0.68 [0.60, 0.7] ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
Length of ICU stay 8 Seriousa Seriousb No Seriousc No 706 768 SMD -0.20 [−0.46, 0.06] ⨁⨁◯◯◯
Very low
Duration of MV 5 Seriousa Seriousb No Seriousc No 570 630 SMD -0.20 [−0.41, 0.01] ⨁⨁◯◯◯
Very low
Ji et al. (2021) Incidence of VAP 20 Seriousa No No No No 1,214 1,214 RR 0.67 [0.59, 0.77] ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
Length of ICU stay 15 Seriousa Seriousb No Seriousc No 984 915 WMD -1.42 [−2.52, −0.31] ⨁⨁◯◯◯
Very low
Length of hospital stay 8 Seriousa Seriousb No Seriousc No 706 768 WMD -1.79 [−3.89, 0.31] ⨁⨁◯◯◯
Very low
Duration of MV 12 Seriousa Seriousb No Seriousc No 783 770 WMD -1.06 [−2.54, 0.43] ⨁⨁◯◯◯
Very low
Cheema et al. (2022) Incidence of VAP 18 Seriousa Seriousb No No No 2,489 2,404 RR 0.68 [0.55, 0.84] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
ICU mortality 9 Seriousa No No No No 1,908 1,960 RR 0.96 [0.85, 1.09] ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
Hospital mortality 8 Seriousa No No No No 1,836 1,837 RR 0.94 [0.84, 1.05] ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
Length of ICU stay 15 Seriousa Seriousb No No No 984 915 MD -1.42 [−2.52, −0.31] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
Length of hospital stay 9 Seriousa Seriousb No No No 1,957 1,950 MD -1.47 [−4.06, 1.12] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
Duration of MV 12 Seriousa Seriousb No No No 2,093 2,089 MD -1.22 [−3.25, 0.81] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
Sun et al. (2022) Incidence of VAP 23 Seriousa Seriousb No No No 2,824 2,750 RR 0.67 [0.56, 0.81] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
Song et al. (2022) Incidence of VAP 15 Seriousa Seriousb No No No 2,338 2,355 OR 0.58 [0.41, 0.81] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
ICU mortality 7 Seriousa No No No No 1,900 1,904 OR 0.94 [0.81, 1.10] ⨁⨁⨁⨁◯
Moderate
Length of ICU stay 13 Seriousa Seriousb No No No 2,227 2,244 MD -1.87 [−3.45, −0.28] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low
Duration of MV 9 Seriousa Seriousb No No No 1,977 1,995 MD -1.57 [−3.12, −0.03] ⨁⨁⨁◯◯
Low

IBS-SSS, IBS symptom severity scale; QoL, Quality of life.aThe experimental design had a large bias in random, distributive findings or was blind; bThe confidence interval overlaps less, the heterogeneity test P was very small, and the I2 was larger; cThe confidence interval was not narrow enough, or the simple size is too small.

 Discussion A definitive conclusion cannot be reached

Probiotics as adjuvant therapy for VAP prophylaxis should be used cautiously, as a definitive conclusion cannot be reached on the basis of currently published evidence. First, 11 of the 13 studies suggested that probiotics reduce the incidence of VAP, while the other two (Gu et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2013) studies suggested probiotics failed in the prevention of VAP. It should be noted that the number of patients in each study is quite significant and the number of outcomes for each study is medium high. The contradictory conclusions between these studies seem to be explainable, as the types of probiotics used in these two studies were not consistent with the dose, frequency, and duration of probiotics administered. Therefore, the same probiotic type as well as a standard uniform dosing regimen are more conducive to the comparability of conclusions between different studies. Second, even though 11 of the 13 studies suggested positive results, their unsatisfactory methodological quality limited the credibility of their conclusions. The AMSTAR-2 assesses one SR/MA as high quality, while the rest were low quality or very low quality. In addition, the reporting quality evaluation revealed that the included studies had varying degrees of missing reports in terms of registration protocols, search strategies, and additional analyses. It is well known that convincing evidence from SRs/MAs presupposes that they are sufficiently transparent, scientific and standardized in the production of evidence. Furthermore, the quality of evidence for all outcome indicators was categorized as very low to moderate due to the risk of bias and high degree of heterogeneity, meaning that the effect sizes of these indicators may not exactly match the true picture. Therefore, based on our assessment of the included SRs/MAs, we recommend that probiotics should be used cautiously to prevent VAP.

 Research deficiencies to be improved

Deficiencies in methodology, reporting quality, and evidence quality need to be improved during the SR/MA process. Deficiencies in the methodology of SR/MA can reduce the validity of results; weaknesses in the reporting of SR/MA might obscure unfavorable occurrences or overstate the impact of treatments; and inadequately persuasive evidence can cast doubt on the accuracy of findings (McAuley et al., 2000). Evidence can be contaminated by these shortcomings, and clinical decisions can be misled as a result. We found that many of the SRs/MAs we reviewed did not have pre-registered protocols, had inadequate thorough searches, or did not provide an assessment of the design choices made in the studies. It should be noted that only one study (Bo et al., 2014) presents a high-quality assessment by the AMSTAR-2 tool. This study also comments that evidence suggests that use of probiotics is associated with a reduction in the incidence of VAP. Which could confirm the beneficial role of probiotics in VAP. However, this manuscript was published on 2014, which indicates that the missing Q2, Q4, and Q7 in the rest of the articles could have been improved taking this publication as a reference.

 Practice and research implications

Registration or publication of study protocols beforehand can reduce any potential bias and enhance process openness. A full search tactic is advantageous to ensuring that the study can be replicated. A list of trials excluded and the reasons for their exclusion is also helpful for reducing publication bias. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses could be taken into account as supplementary analytical techniques when doing data analysis in order to investigate causes of heterogeneity or even to rule out doing a pooled analyses in the event that there is a considerable amount of variation among studies. In particular, high-quality trials published in peer-reviewed journals are a guarantee of high-quality SR/MA. Thus, trials should be designed and conducted according to the Consolidated Standards to ensure high quality evidence and clinical relevance (Shimizu et al., 2021). Furthermore, SR/MA must be designed and implemented in strict compliance with AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA to ensure evidence availability.

 Promise of probiotics for VAP

Because of illness and different types of treatment (e.g., broad-spectrum antibiotics for infection management, MV for respiratory failure), it is challenging to maintain a healthy gut microbiota in critically ill patients (Shimizu et al., 2021). In comparison to healthy individuals, patients had 100 times greater levels of Staphylococcus and almost 10,000 times fewer total anaerobes, such as Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium (Shimizu et al., 2006). When comparing critically ill patients to healthy persons, butyric acid, acetic acid, and organic acids generated from gut microbiota are reduced dramatically (Shimizu et al., 2006). These findings brought to light how the gut microbiota deteriorate during a serious illness (Shimizu et al., 2011). Levels of Lactobacilli, Bifidobacteria, and microbial products were significantly higher in patients taking probiotics compared to critically ill patients not taking probiotics (Shimizu et al., 2005). In patients receiving probiotics in ICU, there were significantly greater levels of organic acids, Lactobacilli, and Bifidobacteria than in those receiving no probiotics (Shimizu et al., 2009). Probiotics are thought to reduce the incidence of VAP as they regulate the composition of the gut microbiota and reduce pathogenic bacterial overgrowth and bacterial translocation through both local and systemic effects, which in turn increase host cell antimicrobial peptides to enhance the immune function (Tegegne and Kebede, 2022). Therefore, the mechanism of probiotics has been interpreted as involving the activity of probiotic metabolites and cellular components to modulate host immunity and inhibit systemic inflammation (Bron et al., 2011).

Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium are the main genera of probiotic strains used to prevent VAP, according to the included studies (Siempos et al., 2010; Gu et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2013; Bo et al., 2014; Weng et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2018; Batra et al., 2020; Su et al., 2020; Ji et al., 2021; Zhao et al., 2021; Cheema et al., 2022; Song et al., 2022; Sun et al., 2022). Lactobacillus plantarum 299, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Enterococcus faecalis, Bifidobacterium bifidum, Lactobacillus bulgaricus, Streptococcus thermophilus, and Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus Lcr35 are widely used as probiotics. Lactobacillus plantarum 299 was evaluated by six studies, and the results showed that patients who underwent probiotic treatment had a lower incidence of VAP and a significantly shorter length of stay in ICU as well as a shorter duration of MV than the control group. Similarly, Lactobacillus casei was evaluated by six studies, and the results showed that patients who underwent probiotic treatment had a lower incidence of VAP, ICU mortality, hospital mortality, and a significantly shorter length of stay in ICU, length of stay in hospital as well as a shorter duration of MV than the control group. Nine studies assessed the effects of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG for VAP, and the pooled analysis revealed considerable benefits in VAP incidence, mortality, length of hospital stay, and duration of MV in patients treated with the probiotic. Two studies evaluated the effects of Enterococcus faecalis and Lactobacillus bulgaricus, and the pooled results showed that patients receiving probiotics had a lower incidence of VAP and a significantly shorter hospital stay compared to controls. Two studies evaluated outcomes in patients treated with Bifidobacterium bifidum and the results indicated that probiotics were also beneficial in patients with VAP. Furthermore, Streptococcus thermophilus and Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus Lcr35 were evaluated by one review, and the pooled analysis revealed considerable benefits in VAP incidence, mortality, length of hospital stay, and duration of MV in patients treated with probiotics. The quality of evidence for both of these widely used probiotics’ effect sizes was graded as low, despite the fact that they both demonstrated therapeutic potential against VAP. As such, care should be taken when suggesting probiotics as preventative therapy for VAP.

 Strengths and limitations

To the best of our knowledge, this study presents the first comprehensive assessment and summary of the data supporting the use of probiotics for the prevention of VAP. However, limitations must be recognized. First, it should be indicated the importance of including the appropriate diet (low in carbohydrates) along with probiotics immediately, to prevent VAP or to avoid the death of the hospitalized patient or large hospital stay. Furthermore, notwithstanding the fact that our evaluation was examined and approved by two separate researchers, different researchers may have differing opinions on any given project due to the subjective nature of quality assessment.

 Conclusion

Probiotics may be associated with reduced incidence of VAP. However, caution should be exercised when recommending probiotics for the prevention of VAP owing to the poor quality of the current evidence.

 Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

 Author contributions

MH: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KW: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. LS: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. WL: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft. WD: Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

 Funding

The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82205268) and Conventional Project of Shaanxi Provincial Sports Bureau (No. 2023132).

 Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 References Atkins D. Eccles M. Flottorp S. Guyatt G. H. Henry D. Hill S. . (2004). Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches the GRADE working group. BMC Health Serv. Res. 4. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-4-38, PMID: 15615589 Batra P. Soni K. D. Mathur P. (2020). Efficacy of probiotics in the prevention of VAP in critically ill ICU patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials. J. Intensive Care 8:81. doi: 10.1186/s40560-020-00487-8, PMID: 33082958 Bo L. Li J. Tao T. Bai Y. Ye X. Hotchkiss R. S. . (2014). Probiotics for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 10:CD009066. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009066.pub2, PMID: 25344083 Bron P. A. van Baarlen P. Kleerebezem M. (2011). Emerging molecular insights into the interaction between probiotics and the host intestinal mucosa. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 10, 66–78. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2690, PMID: 22101918 Cheema H. A. Shahid A. Ayyan M. Mustafa B. Zahid A. Fatima M. . (2022). Probiotics for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia: an updated systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Nutrients 14:1600. doi: 10.3390/nu14081600, PMID: 35458162 Chen Z. Jiang T. Peng Y. Qiang X. Yang F. Haiyin H. . (2022). Acupuncture and moxibustion treating lower urinary tract symptoms due to benign prostatic hyperplasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Acupunct. Herb. Med. 2, 84–90. doi: 10.1097/HM9.0000000000000029 Chen C. Wang J. Yin M. Zhao Q. (2018). Probiotics are effective in decreasing the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in adult patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 11, 10269–10277. Ferrer M. Torres A. (2018). Epidemiology of ICU-acquired pneumonia. Curr. Opin. Crit. Care 24, 325–331. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000536 François B. Cariou A. Clere-Jehl R. Dequin P. F. Renon-Carron F. Daix T. . (2019). Prevention of early ventilator-associated pneumonia after cardiac arrest. N. Engl. J. Med. 381, 1831–1842. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1812379, PMID: 31693806 Goutier J. M. Holzmueller C. G. Edwards K. C. Klompas M. Speck K. Berenholtz S. M. (2014). Strategies to enhance adoption of ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention interventions: a systematic literature review. Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 35, 998–1005. doi: 10.1086/677152, PMID: 25026616 Gu W. J. Wei C. Y. Yin R. X. (2012). Lack of efficacy of probiotics in preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia probiotics for ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Chest 142, 859–868. doi: 10.1378/chest.12-0679, PMID: 22797719 Hill C. Guarner F. Reid G. Gibson G. R. Merenstein D. J. Pot B. . (2014). Expert consensus document. The international scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 11, 506–514. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66, PMID: 24912386 Huang J. Liu J. Liu Z. Ma J. Ma J. Lv M. . (2022). Reliability of the evidence to guide decision-making in acupuncture for functional dyspepsia. Front. Public Health 10:842096. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.842096, PMID: 35433619 Huang J. Lu M. Zheng Y. Ma J. Ma X. Wang Y. . (2021). Quality of evidence supporting the role of acupuncture for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Pain Res. Manag. 2021:2752246. doi: 10.1155/2021/2752246, PMID: 34956431 Ji T. Zhu X. Shang F. Zhang X. (2021). Preventive effect of probiotics on ventilator-associated pneumonia: a Meta-analysis of 2428 patients. Ann. Pharmacother. 55, 949–962. doi: 10.1177/1060028020983021, PMID: 33349001 Maselli D. J. Restrepo M. I. (2011). Strategies in the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Ther. Adv. Respir. Dis. 5, 131–141. doi: 10.1177/1753465810395655 McAuley L. Pham B. Tugwell P. Moher D. (2000). Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses? Lancet 356, 1228–1231. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02786-0, PMID: 11072941 Metersky M. L. Kalil A. C. (2018). Management of ventilator-associated pneumonia: guidelines. Clin. Chest Med. 39, 797–808. doi: 10.1016/j.ccm.2018.08.002 Moher D. Liberati A. Tetzlaff J. Altman D. G.PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535, PMID: 19622551 Nanao T. Nishizawa H. Fujimoto J. Ogawa T. (2021). Additional medical costs associated with ventilator-associated pneumonia in an intensive care unit in Japan. Am. J. Infect. Control 49, 340–344. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2020.07.027, PMID: 32721417 Shea B. J. Reeves B. C. Wells G. Thuku M. Hamel C. Moran J. . (2017). AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 358:j4008. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j4008, PMID: 28935701 Shimizu K. Hiroshi O. Goto M. Tasaki O. Kuwagata Y. Tanaka H. . (2005). Synbiotics reduce the septic complications in patients with severe Sirs. Crit. Care Med. 33:A9. doi: 10.1097/00003246-200512002-00035 Shimizu K. Ogura H. Goto M. Asahara T. Nomoto K. Morotomi M. . (2009). Synbiotics decrease the incidence of septic complications in patients with severe SIRS: a preliminary report. Dig. Dis. Sci. 54, 1071–1078. doi: 10.1007/s10620-008-0460-2, PMID: 18726154 Shimizu K. Ogura H. Goto M. Asahara T. Nomoto K. Morotomi M. . (2006). Altered gut flora and environment in patients with severe SIRS. J. Trauma 60, 126–133. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000197374.99755.fe, PMID: 16456446 Shimizu K. Ogura H. Hamasaki T. Goto M. Tasaki O. Asahara T. . (2011). Altered gut flora are associated with septic complications and death in critically ill patients with systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Dig. Dis. Sci. 56, 1171–1177. doi: 10.1007/s10620-010-1418-8, PMID: 20931284 Shimizu K. Ojima M. Ogura H. (2021). Gut microbiota and probiotics/Synbiotics for modulation of immunity in critically ill patients. Nutrients 13:2439. doi: 10.3390/nu13072439, PMID: 34371948 Siempos I. I. Ntaidou T. K. Falagas M. E. (2010). Impact of the administration of probiotics on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit. Care Med. 38, 954–962. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181c8fe4b, PMID: 20016381 Song H. Hu W. Zhou X. Tao J. Zhang S. Su X. . (2022). Clinical benefits from administering probiotics to mechanical ventilated patients in intensive care unit: a PRISMA-guided meta-analysis. Front. Nutr. 8:798827. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2021.798827, PMID: 35155520 Su M. Jia Y. Li Y. Zhou D. Jia J. (2020). Probiotics for the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Respir. Care 65, 673–685. doi: 10.4187/respcare.07097, PMID: 32127415 Sun Y. C. Wang C. Y. Wang H. L. Yuan Y. Lu J. H. Zhong L. (2022). Probiotic in the prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients: evidence from meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials. BMC Pulm. Med. 22:168. doi: 10.1186/s12890-022-01965-5, PMID: 35484547 Tegegne B. A. Kebede B. (2022). Probiotics, their prophylactic and therapeutic applications in human health development: a review of the literature. Heliyon 8:e09725. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09725, PMID: 35785237 Torres A. Niederman M. S. Chastre J. Ewig S. Fernandez-Vandellos P. Hanberger H. . (2017). International ERS/ESICM/ESCMID/ALAT guidelines for the management of hospital-acquired pneumonia and ventilator-associated pneumonia: guidelines for the management of hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP)/ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) of the European Respiratory Society (ERS), European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM), European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ESCMID) and Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax (ALAT). Eur. Respir. J. 50:1700582. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00582-2017, PMID: 28890434 Wang J. Liu K. X. Ariani F. Tao L. L. Zhang J. Qu J. M. (2013). Probiotics for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 8:e83934. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083934, PMID: 24367620 Warren D. K. Shukla S. J. Olsen M. A. Kollef M. H. Hollenbeak C. S. Cox M. J. . (2003). Outcome and attributable cost of ventilator-associated pneumonia among intensive care unit patients in a suburban medical center. Crit. Care Med. 31, 1312–1317. doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000063087.93157.06, PMID: 12771596 Weng H. Li J. G. Mao Z. Feng Y. Wang C. Y. Ren X. Q. . (2017). Probiotics for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients: a Meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis. Front. Pharmacol. 8:717. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2017.00717, PMID: 29062279 Yang K. Zhang J. Zhao L. Cheng L. Li Y. Kang Y. . (2022). An umbrella review of Lianhua Qingwen combined with Western medicine for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019. Acupunct. Herb. Med. 2, 143–151. doi: 10.1097/HM9.0000000000000041, PMID: 37808351 Zhao J. Li L. Q. Chen C. Y. Zhang G. S. Cui W. Tian B. P. (2021). Do probiotics help prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients? A systematic review with meta-analysis. ERJ Open Res. 7, 00302–02020. doi: 10.1183/23120541.00302-2020, PMID: 33532460