Next Article in Journal
Vascular Access 4.0 for Hemodialysis: Toward a Needle-Free, Smart, Closed, and Connected System
Next Article in Special Issue
Use of an Algo-Based Decision-Making Tool to Compare Real-Life Clinical Practice in a Single Tertiary Center with the Kyoto IPMN Surveillance Recommendations
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of an Internet of Things-Based Medication Assistance System on Real-World ART Adherence and Treatment Response in People Living with HIV
Previous Article in Special Issue
Predicting Mortality in Non-Variceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Machine Learning Models Versus Conventional Clinical Risk Scores
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/jcm15031152
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Strain-Specific Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Probiotics Efficacy in the Treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome

by
Roman Maslennikov
1,*,
Eva Gosteeva
1,
Vera Ananeva
1,
Lada Korshunova
1,
Anastasya Kravtsowa
1,
Elena Poluektova
1,
Anatoly Ulyanin
1,
Alexey Sigidaev
2,
Patimat Kikhasurova
1 and
Vladimir Ivashkin
1
1
Department of Internal Medicine, Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Sechenov University, Moscow 119435, Russia
2
Department of Clinical Disciplines, Tyumen State Medical University, Tyumen 625023, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2026, 15(3), 1152; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15031152
Submission received: 30 December 2025 / Revised: 25 January 2026 / Accepted: 30 January 2026 / Published: 2 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Gastrointestinal Diseases)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Many probiotic strains have been studied in relation to irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). The aim of this study was to identify probiotic strains demonstrating efficacy in the management of IBS based on meta-analyses of randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs). Methods: This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD420251047092). Searches were conducted in PubMed and Scopus on 8 April 2025. Additional completed studies with available results were identified through ClinicalTrials.gov. An additional search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), including records indexed in EMBASE, was conducted in December 2025 and did not identify any additional studies. RPCTs were included if they evaluated single-strain probiotics without additional active components compared with a placebo in patients with IBS. Studies whose results could not be meta-analyzed were excluded. Results: A total of 2643 records were identified; 32 articles evaluating 10 probiotic strains were included in the meta-analyses. Meta-analyses demonstrated the efficacy of Bifidobacterium longum (formerly Bifidobacterium infantis) 35624, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum 299v (DSM 9843), Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-3856, and Bacillus coagulans Unique IS2 (MTCC 5260) in improving key IBS symptoms. Meta-analyses also demonstrated that Bacillus coagulans MTCC 5856 improved quality of life for those with IBS. Conflicting results were observed for Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745. Meta-analyses did not demonstrate the efficacy of Escherichia coli Nissle 1917, Lactobacillus gasseri BNR17, or Lactobacillus casei Shirota. Conclusions: Several probiotic strains demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of IBS in meta-analyses of RPCTs.

1. Introduction

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders worldwide [1]. Despite the wide range of pharmacological treatments proposed, their efficacy is often limited [1,2,3,4,5]. Given the established role of the gut microbiota in the pathogenesis of IBS [6,7,8], the use of live microorganisms (probiotics) has attracted considerable interest as a therapeutic approach. Numerous clinical trials have investigated the efficacy of probiotics in the management of IBS; however, their results have been inconsistent. To synthesize the available evidence, multiple systematic reviews with meta-analyses have been published [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38] (Supplementary Table S1). While most of these reviews concluded that probiotics are generally effective in IBS, substantial heterogeneity was observed, suggesting strain-specific differences in therapeutic effects.
Importantly, the vast majority of published systematic reviews did not perform meta-analyses at the level of individual probiotic strains. The most recent strain-specific meta-analysis of probiotic efficacy in IBS was published more than four years ago [33] and therefore requires updating. Moreover, this analysis included studies evaluating multi-strain formulations [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50], as well as probiotics combined with prebiotics [51] or simethicone [52], which precludes a reliable assessment of the true effects of individual probiotic strains.
In accordance with the principles of evidence-based medicine, meta-analyses of randomized placebo-controlled trials (RPCTs) provide the highest level of evidence, as they minimize bias and allow an assessment of the reproducibility of results. In this systematic review, we aimed to identify specific probiotic strains demonstrating reproducible benefits across different IBS outcomes based on meta-analyses of RPCTs.

2. Materials and Methods

This systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD420251047092) and conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines [53]. On 8 April 2025, searches of the literature were performed in PubMed and Scopus using the search query “irritable AND bowel AND syndrome AND probiotic”. A total of 2507 records were identified in Scopus and 1400 in PubMed. After the removal of duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 2635 publications were screened. Additional completed studies with available results were identified through ClinicalTrials.gov using the condition “irritable bowel syndrome” and the keyword “probiotic”, with the filter “results posted”. The reference lists of all identified meta-analyses were also screened, yielding eight additional eligible studies. In total, 2643 records were assessed (Figure 1).
Additional searches were performed using the following terms: “irritable AND bowel AND syndrome AND Bacillus”, “irritable AND bowel AND syndrome AND Streptococcus”, “irritable AND bowel AND syndrome AND Lactobacillus”, “irritable AND bowel AND syndrome AND Bifidobacterium”, “irritable AND bowel AND syndrome AND Saccharomyces”, and “(probiotic[MeSH Terms]) AND (irritable bowel syndrome[MeSH Terms])”. These searches did not identify any additional eligible studies. An additional search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) was conducted using the term “irritable bowel syndrome probiotic”. As of December 2025, 616 trials were identified, including 237 records indexed in EMBASE. No new relevant studies with available results were identified for inclusion. Searches using generic probiotic strain names in this database did not increase the number of eligible studies.
Publications that did not report clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of orally administered probiotics in human patients with IBS were excluded. Specifically, reviews, systematic reviews, editorials, case reports, commentaries, corrections, animal or in vitro studies, studies involving non-viable bacteria (metabiotics), and studies evaluating non-oral routes of probiotic administration were excluded. Studies were also excluded if they lacked a placebo control, evaluated probiotics in combination with other active treatments, did not specify the probiotic strain, or investigated multi-strain probiotic formulations.
Subsequently, the number of eligible publications available for each probiotic strain was assessed. Strains supported by only a single eligible publication were excluded. The final analysis included only probiotic strains for which efficacy in IBS was evaluated in more than one randomized placebo-controlled trial (RPCT).
No language restrictions were applied.
Study selection was performed independently by two reviewers (R.M. and one of the co-authors: E.G., A.K., L.K., or V.A.). Any disagreements were resolved by consensus; if consensus could not be reached, the decision of the principal investigator (V.I.) was considered final. The authors attempted to obtain full-text versions of all potentially eligible studies. When necessary, corresponding authors were contacted by email or via the scientific social network ResearchGate. Studies were excluded if the full text could not be obtained and if the data reported in the abstract were insufficient for meta-analysis.
Data were extracted from all included studies using a predefined data extraction form. Extracted variables included country of origin, probiotic strain, daily dose, treatment duration, sample size in each study arm, IBS subtype, diagnostic criteria, and patient demographics (age and sex). Whenever possible, data were extracted specifically for participants included in the final analyses of the original studies; otherwise, data reported at baseline or study inclusion were used.
Outcome data were also extracted. The primary outcomes were a reduction in abdominal pain, bloating, and other IBS-related symptoms, as well as an improvement in quality of life and overall IBS symptom severity. The secondary outcome was the incidence of adverse events. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers (R.M. and one of the co-authors: E.G., A.K., L.K., or V.A.). Discrepancies were resolved by consensus, with arbitration by the principal investigator (V.I.) when necessary.
The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool [54]. Assessment was performed independently by two reviewers (R.M. and one of the co-authors: E.G., A.K., L.K., or V.A.). Discrepancies were resolved by consensus, and if consensus could not be reached, the decision of the principal investigator (V.I.) was considered final.
The primary outcomes were the standardized mean differences in changes from baseline in symptom rating scales, stool frequency, and stool consistency according to the Bristol Stool Scale. Additionally, the odds ratio (OR) for clinically significant symptom improvement with probiotics versus placebo was analyzed. Visual data were digitized using Screen Calipers 4.0 (Iconico, USA). Standard errors of the mean were converted to standard deviations by multiplying by the square root of the sample size. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Values of I2 < 25% were considered indicative of low heterogeneity, whereas values > 75% indicated high heterogeneity. A random-effects model was applied in cases of high heterogeneity (I2 > 75%) and a fixed-effects model was used otherwise. Meta-analysis results were presented as forest plots. When a meta-analysis included more than four studies, publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and the Begg–Mazumdar rank correlation test. All calculations, meta-analyses, and publication bias assessments were performed using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (version 3.3.0.70).
This study was conducted without financial support, and there are no conflicts of interest. The detailed study protocol has not been published. Additional data can be obtained from the corresponding author by e-mail upon reasonable request.

3. Results

Among the 2643 studies reviewed, 67 RPCTs assessed the efficacy of oral single-strain probiotics in IBS, with the specific strain indicated. Of these, 10 strains were investigated in at least 2 studies to meta-analyze, with a total of 32 studies describing their efficacy. These studies were included in this systematic review. The characteristics of these studies are presented in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3.

3.1. Bifidobacterium longum (Bifidobacterium infantis) 35624

The use of Bifidobacterium longum (Bifidobacterium infantis) 35624 as a single strain has been studied in the treatment of IBS in three studies [55,56,57] that met the inclusion criteria (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). A meta-analysis of their results demonstrated that this strain effectively reduces the severity of abdominal pain, straining/difficulty during defecation, and IBS symptoms in general (Figure 2). However, its effect on bloating, urgency, a feeling of incomplete evacuation, and passage of gas was insufficient (Figure 2). The heterogeneity of the study results varied significantly (I2 = 57.9%, 10.4%, 50.8%, 20.6%, 10.3%, 46.3%, 19.5%, respectively). Indicators of quality of life were reported in a manner that did not allow for meta-analysis. The incidence of adverse effects in the probiotic groups did not differ significantly from that in the placebo groups (Table 2).

3.2. Lactobacillus rhamnosus (Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus; Lactobacillus casei subsp. rhamnosus) GG

The use of Lactobacillus rhamnosus (Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus; Lactobacillus casei subsp. rhamnosus) GG as a single strain has been studied in the treatment of IBS in five studies [58,59,60,61,62] that met the criteria (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). This probiotic significantly reduced pain (Figure 3). The heterogeneity of study results was moderate (I2 = 25.9%). When only studies in children were considered, the positive effect was maintained (I2 = 42.7%). However, the beneficial effect was lost across all subgroups in a meta-analysis based on the diagnostic criteria used for IBS (Supplementary Figure S1a). In a subgroup analysis by drug dose, a beneficial effect was observed with a daily probiotic dose of 6 billion cells, but not with 20 or 40 billion cells (Supplementary Figure S1b). In a subgroup analysis by treatment duration, benefits were seen only with 8 weeks of treatment, but not with 4 or 6 weeks (Supplementary Figure S1c). Other IBS symptoms and quality of life indicators could not be meta-analyzed from these studies. Most studies reported no adverse effects with this strain (Table 2). No publication bias was detected (p = 0.807) (Figure 4a).

3.3. Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (Lactobacillus plantarum) 299v (DSM 9843)

The use of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (Lactobacillus plantarum) 299v (DSM 9843) as a single strain has been studied in the treatment of IBS in six studies [63,64,65,66,67,68] that met the criteria (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). A meta-analysis of their results showed that this strain effectively reduces the severity of abdominal pain and feelings of incomplete evacuation/disordered defecation function. The number of patients reporting significant improvements in abdominal pain, flatulence, and general digestive symptoms was higher in the probiotic group than in the placebo group. This strain did not have a significant effect on the rate of constipation resolution and severity of bloating/flatulence (Figure 5). The heterogeneity of the results of studies was different (I2 = 50.1; 0.0; 62.9; 61.1; 0,0; 88.4; 68.4; 92.1%, respectively). The incidence of adverse effects in the probiotic groups did not differ significantly from that observed in the placebo groups (Table 2).

3.4. Escherichia coli Nissle 1917

The use of Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 as a single-strain probiotic in the treatment of IBS was studied in two studies [69,70] that met the inclusion criteria (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). Of the data presented, only the incidence of reduction in abdominal pain and urgency could be included in a meta-analysis. Neither of these outcomes showed a significant difference between the probiotic and placebo groups (Figure 6). There was no heterogeneity in the results of these studies (I2 = 0% for both). The incidence of adverse effects in the probiotic groups did not differ significantly from that observed in the placebo groups (Table 2).

3.5. Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-3856

The use of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-3856 as a single-strain probiotic in the treatment of IBS was studied in four studies [71,72,73,74] that met the criteria (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). Moreover, in 2 of them, data were provided separately for each form of IBS [71,74]. This strain reduced abdominal pain severity in the meta-analysis of all data, as well as in the constipation-predominant subgroups, but not in the diarrhea-predominant and mixed-disorders subgroups (Figure 7a). The heterogeneity of the study’s results was high (I2 = 76.9). No publication bias was detected (p = 0.174; Figure 4b). Patients who received this strain were more likely to report a reduction in abdominal pain than those in the placebo group (Figure 7b). This strain had no significant effect on bloating (Figure 7c; I2 = 35.5). This strain significantly improved stool consistency (Bristol Stool Scale) in the constipation-predominant subgroup (Figure 7d; I2 = 58.5). The incidence of adverse effects in the probiotic groups did not differ significantly from that observed in the placebo groups (Table 2).

3.6. Lactobacillus gasseri BNR17

The effects of Lactobacillus gasseri BNR17 as a single-strain probiotic were described in two studies (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3) [75,76], the data of which had to be reprocessed before meta-analysis. This strain did not show a significant effect on abdominal pain and bloating (Figure 8). The heterogeneity of the study results varied (I2 = 76.9 and 0.0%, respectively). Further studies with standardized outcome reporting (mean ± standard deviation or standard error of the mean before and after the study) are needed to clarify the effect of this strain on IBS symptoms. The incidence of adverse effects in the probiotic groups did not differ significantly from that observed in the placebo groups (Table 2).

3.7. Bacillus coagulans Unique IS2 (MTCC5260)

The effects of Bacillus coagulans Unique IS2 (MTCC5260) as a single-strain probiotic were described in two studies (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3) [77,78]. This strain reduced the severity of abdominal pain, bloating, urgency, incomplete evacuation, straining, flatulence, bowel habit dissatisfaction, and overall IBS symptoms (Figure 9a–h). The heterogeneity of the study results varied (I2 = 94.7%; 0.0%; 64.1%; 66.3%; 76.0%; 0.0%; 33.0%; 74,3%). Normalization of stool consistency occurred more frequently than in the placebo group (Figure 9i; I2 = 0.0%). The incidence of adverse effects in the probiotic groups did not differ significantly from that observed in the placebo groups (Table 2).

3.8. Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745

The effects of Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745 as a single-strain probiotic were described in five studies (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3) [79,80,81,82,83]. We were unable to obtain the full text of one of these studies [83], and therefore its data were not included in our meta-analyses. In two studies, this strain was more likely to produce significant reductions in abdominal pain compared to placebo (Figure 10a; I2 = 0.0%). However, analysis of the other two studies, which reported the values of symptom scales before and after treatment rather than the number of patients with symptom improvement, showed that this strain did not have a sufficient effect on the severity of abdominal pain, bloating, urgency, straining, sense of incomplete evacuation, and passage of mucus (Figure 10b–g; I2 = 0.0%; 0.0%; 0.0%; 68.9%; 60.3%; 0.0%, respectively). These studies were characterized by high variability in the characteristics (mean values were often equal to or less than the standard deviation). Further studies are needed to clarify its effectiveness in the treatment of IBS. The incidence of adverse effects in the probiotic groups did not differ significantly from that observed in the placebo groups (Table 2).

3.9. Bacillus coagulans MTCC 5856

The effects of Bacillus coagulans MTCC 5856 as a single-strain probiotic were described in two studies (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3) [84,85]. Unfortunately, the effect of this probiotic on quality of life is the only parameter whose results could be meta-analyzed. This strain showed a positive effect on this parameter (Figure 11; I2 = 0.0%). The incidence of adverse effects in the probiotic groups did not differ significantly from that observed in the placebo groups (Table 2).

3.10. Lactobacillus casei Shirota

The effects of Lactobacillus casei Shirota as a single-strain probiotic were described in two studies (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3) [86,87]. This strain did not have a sufficient effect on the severity of abdominal pain, bloating, flatulence, and IBS symptoms in general (Figure 12; I2 = 0.0%; 0.0%; 0.0%; 68.9%, respectively). The incidence of adverse effects in the probiotic groups did not differ significantly from that observed in the placebo groups (Table 2).

4. Discussion

A meta-analysis of RPCT outcomes is the gold standard for confirming its effectiveness in treating an illness. We were able to identify ten probiotic strains whose data could be meta-analyzed out of the numerous probiotics evaluated for the treatment of IBS. Bifidobacterium longum 35624, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (DSM 9843), Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-3856, and Bacillus coagulans Unique IS2 were found to be associated with an improvement of all or core IBS symptoms.
The work by Hun L. et al. [88], which detailed the impact of Bacillus coagulans GBI-30, 6086 on IBS, was excluded from the analysis since we were unable to access the complete text of the article by Dolin BJ et al. [87] that studied the same strain.
Despite the fact that 30 systematic studies (Supplementary Table S1) on the effects of probiotics in IBS have been published thus far, the majority of them either describe all of these drugs collectively or additionally perform analysis by genus or, less frequently, species. More than four years have passed since the publication of the last systematic study that attempted to perform a strain-specific analysis [33]. We were able to considerably update the data in that review by incorporating 13 new studies into our meta-analyses. According to that review, Bacillus coagulans MTCC5260 and Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG lessen the intensity of abdominal pain in IBS, while Bacillus coagulans MTCC5260, Lactobacillus plantarum 299v, Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-3856 increase the frequency of abdominal pain relief, which is in line with our findings.
According to a systematic review by Goodoory et al. [10], Saccharomyces cerevisiae I-3856 significantly reduces abdominal pain, while Lactobacillus plantarum 299V improves overall IBS symptoms without significantly affecting abdominal pain. Bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75 has little effect on overall IBS symptoms. Bloating is likewise unaffected by the latter. These results align with our findings for Saccharomyces cerevisiae I-3856. Since the effects of living and dead bacteria can differ greatly, we excluded Bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75 from our evaluation because one [89] of the two studies included in that review investigated dead bacteria (metabiotics) of this strain. In contrast to that review, ours showed that Lactobacillus plantarum 299V reduces the intensity of IBS-related abdominal pain. Unfortunately, a specific forest plot for this strain was not included in that study, which would have helped us comprehend the variations in review outcomes. Furthermore, in contrast to that review, ours examined seven additional strains and a greater number of IBS symptoms. Consistent with our results, Wen et al. [17] demonstrated that Lactobacillus casei Shirota has no discernible effect on IBS. In that review, other strains were not examined independently.
Consistent with our findings, Ford et al. [20] showed that Lactobacillus plantarum DSM 9843 (299V) considerably decreased the intensity of IBS symptoms. In that analysis, Bifidobacterium longum 35624 was not found to be beneficial for stomach pain; however, our review, which included additional research, discovered that this strain was beneficial for IBS symptoms. In that review, the outcomes of other strains were not independently meta-analyzed.
In line with our findings, Wu et al. [26] showed that Saccharomyces cerevisiae I-3856 was useful in lessening the intensity of IBS symptoms. In that review, the outcomes of other strains were not independently meta-analyzed.
The mechanism by which probiotics may exert a beneficial effect in IBS is complex and not fully understood, much as IBS pathogenesis itself. It is believed that probiotics strengthen the intestinal barrier and modulate the composition and function of the gut microbiota, altering the signals it transmits to the intestinal nervous and immune systems and thereby reducing visceral sensitivity and normalizing intestinal motility [90,91,92,93].
A limitation of our systematic review is that we were unable to obtain the full texts of two articles [83,87], whose data could have influenced the results of our review. In addition, the lack of a standard form for reporting study results (mean and standard deviation for results before and after treatment) could have led to biased data conversion. Furthermore, most meta-analyses included only a small number of studies.
Another limitation is that a number of potentially beneficial probiotic strains were excluded from our meta-analyses because they only had one RCPI. This could lead to selection bias, favoring the most well-known probiotic strains over others that are less well-known and, hence, have received less research. Table 4 summarizes the findings of studies on the efficacy of excluded probiotic strains in the treatment of IBS [87,88,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123].
Our research is further limited by the fact that we often meta-analyzed studies that used various approaches, such as varying probiotic dosages, treatment durations, IBS variants, participant age, and diagnostic criteria (Rome I, II, III, IV, and others). We conducted subgroup meta-analyses for various patient age groups and IBS variations in addition to the overall meta-analysis wherever feasible (e.g., for Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-3856). However, unfortunately, in most cases, the number of studies was too small to conduct subgroup analyses.
A strength of our work is that it represents the most up-to-date and most comprehensive strain-specific meta-analyses on this topic.
More strain-specific RPCTs are needed for subsequent meta-analyses with other probiotic strains tested in IBS.

5. Conclusions

Meta-analyses confirmed the efficacy of Bifidobacterium longum 35624, Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (DSM 9843), Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-3856, and Bacillus coagulans Unique IS2 in relation to the main symptoms of IBS. Bacillus coagulans MTCC 5856 improves quality of life for those with IBS. Conflicting results were obtained from meta-analyses of Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745 efficacy. Meta-analyses did not confirm the efficacy of Escherichia coli Nissle 1917, Lactobacillus gasseri BNR17, and Lactobacillus casei Shirota in the treatment of IBS.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm15031152/s1. Figure S1: Subgroup meta-analysis of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG’s impact on the intensity of abdominal pain in irritable bowel syndrome based on specific Rome criteria for diagnosis (a), day dosage (billions cells/day; b), and treatment duration (weeks; c). Table S1: Main results and limitations of recent meta-analyses of probiotic use in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Table S2: PRISMA Checklist [124].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.I., E.P. and R.M.; methodology, V.I., E.P., A.U., A.S. and R.M.; software, R.M.; formal analysis, E.G., V.A., L.K., A.K., P.K. and R.M.; writing—original draft preparation, R.M.; writing—review and editing, all authors; visualization, R.M.; supervision, V.I., E.P., A.S. and R.M.; project administration, V.I., E.P., A.S. and R.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the Supplementary Material; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
IBSIrritable bowel syndrome
RPCTRandomized placebo-controlled trials

References

  1. Ivashkin, V.T.; Maev, I.V.; Shelygin, Y.A.; Baranskaya, E.K.; Belous, S.S.; Belousova, E.A.; Beniashvili, A.G.; Vasilyev, S.V.; Veselov, A.V.; Grigoryev, E.G.; et al. Diagnosis and Treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Clinical Recommendations of the Russian Gastroenterological Association and Association of Coloproctologists of Russia. Russ. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. Coloproctol. 2021, 31, 74–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sebastián Domingo, J.J. Irritable bowel syndrome. Med. Clín. 2022, 158, 76–81. [Google Scholar]
  3. Huang, K.Y.; Wang, F.Y.; Lv, M.; Ma, X.X.; Tang, X.D.; Lv, L. Irritable bowel syndrome: Epidemiology, overlap disorders, pathophysiology and treatment. World J. Gastroenterol. 2023, 29, 4120–4135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Duncanson, K.; Tikhe, D.; Williams, G.M.; Talley, N.J. Irritable bowel syndrome—Controversies in diagnosis and management. Expert. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2023, 17, 649–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Camilleri, M.; Boeckxstaens, G. Irritable bowel syndrome: Treatment based on pathophysiology and biomarkers. Gut 2023, 72, 590–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Zhao, Y.; Zou, D.W. Gut microbiota and irritable bowel syndrome. J. Dig. Dis. 2023, 24, 312–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gu, Y.; Li, L.; Yang, M.; Liu, T.; Song, X.; Qin, X.; Xu, X.; Liu, J.; Wang, B.; Cao, H. Bile acid–gut microbiota crosstalk in irritable bowel syndrome. Crit. Rev. Microbiol. 2023, 49, 350–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cheng, X.; Ren, C.; Mei, X.; Jiang, Y.; Zhou, Y. Gut microbiota and irritable bowel syndrome: Status and prospect. Front. Med. 2024, 11, 1429133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Xie, P.; Luo, M.; Deng, X.; Fan, J.; Xiong, L. Outcome-specific efficacy of different probiotic strains and mixtures in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Nutrients 2023, 15, 3856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Goodoory, V.C.; Khasawneh, M.; Black, C.J.; Quigley, E.M.M.; Moayyedi, P.; Ford, A.C. Efficacy of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2023, 165, 1206–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, W.X.; Shi, L.B.; Zhou, M.S.; Wu, J.; Shi, H.Y. Efficacy of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. J. Med. Microbiol. 2023, 72, 001758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Asha, M.Z.; Khalil, S.F.H. Efficacy and safety of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sultan Qaboos Univ. Med. J. 2020, 20, e13–e24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Zhang, T.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, J.; Sun, F.; Duan, L. Efficacy of probiotics for irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 859967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Liang, D.; Longgui, N.; Guoqiang, X. Efficacy of different probiotic protocols in irritable bowel syndrome: A network meta-analysis. Medicine 2019, 98, e16068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Zhang, Y.; Li, L.; Guo, C.; Mu, D.; Feng, B.; Zuo, X.; Li, Y. Effects of probiotic type, dose and treatment duration on irritable bowel syndrome diagnosed by Rome III criteria: A meta-analysis. BMC Gastroenterol. 2016, 16, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Niu, H.L.; Xiao, J.Y. The efficacy and safety of probiotics in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: Evidence based on 35 randomized controlled trials. Int. J. Surg. 2020, 75, 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wen, Y.; Li, J.; Long, Q.; Yue, C.C.; He, B.; Tang, X.G. The efficacy and safety of probiotics for patients with constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Surg. 2020, 79, 111–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ceccherini, C.; Daniotti, S.; Bearzi, C.; Re, I. Evaluating the efficacy of probiotics in IBS treatment using a systematic review of clinical trials and multi-criteria decision analysis. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chen, M.; Yuan, L.; Xie, C.R.; Wang, X.Y.; Feng, S.J.; Xiao, X.Y.; Zheng, H. Probiotics for the management of irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and three-level meta-analysis. Int. J. Surg. 2023, 109, 3631–3647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ford, A.C.; Harris, L.A.; Lacy, B.E.; Quigley, E.M.M.; Moayyedi, P. Systematic review with meta-analysis: The efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics and antibiotics in irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2018, 48, 1044–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Le Morvan de Sequeira, C.; Kaeber, M.; Cekin, S.E.; Enck, P.; Mack, I. The effect of probiotics on quality of life, depression and anxiety in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 3497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Qing, Q.; Chen, Y.; Zheng, D.K.; Sun, M.L.; Xie, Y.; Zhang, S.H. Systematic review with meta-analysis: Effects of probiotic fungi on irritable bowel syndrome. Benef. Microbes 2023, 14, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. van der Geest, A.M.; Schukking, I.; Brummer, R.J.M.; van de Burgwal, L.H.M.; Larsen, O.F.A. Comparing probiotic and drug interventions in irritable bowel syndrome: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Benef. Microbes 2022, 13, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Xie, C.R.; Tang, B.; Shi, Y.Z.; Peng, W.Y.; Ye, K.; Tao, Q.F.; Yu, S.G.; Zheng, H.; Chen, M. Low FODMAP diet and probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review with network meta-analysis. Front. Pharmacol. 2022, 13, 853011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Konstantis, G.; Efstathiou, S.; Pourzitaki, C.; Kitsikidou, E.; Germanidis, G.; Chourdakis, M. Efficacy and safety of probiotics in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials using Rome IV criteria. Clin. Nutr. 2023, 42, 800–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wu, Y.; Li, Y.; Zheng, Q.; Li, L. The efficacy of probiotics, prebiotics, synbiotics, and fecal microbiota transplantation in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Nutrients 2024, 16, 2114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yang, R.; Jiang, J.; Ouyang, J.; Zhao, Y.; Xi, B. Efficacy and safety of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Nutr. ESPEN 2024, 60, 362–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Li, B.; Liang, L.; Deng, H.; Guo, J.; Shu, H.; Zhang, L. Efficacy and safety of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Shang, X.; E, F.F.; Guo, K.L.; Li, Y.F.; Zhao, H.L.; Wang, Y.; Chen, N.; Nian, T.; Yang, C.Q.; Yang, K.H.; et al. Effectiveness and safety of probiotics for patients with constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Sun, J.R.; Kong, C.F.; Qu, X.K.; Deng, C.; Lou, Y.N.; Jia, L.Q. Efficacy and safety of probiotics in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Saudi J. Gastroenterol. 2020, 26, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Almabruk, B.A.; Bajafar, A.A.; Mohamed, A.N.; Al-Zahrani, S.A.; Albishi, N.M.; Aljarwan, R.; Aljaser, R.A.; Alghamdi, L.I.; Almutairi, T.S.; Alsolami, A.S.; et al. Efficacy of probiotics in the management of irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cureus 2024, 16, e75954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Wang, Y.; Chen, N.; Niu, F.; Li, Y.; Guo, K.; Shang, X.; E, F.; Yang, C.; Yang, K.; Li, X. Probiotics therapy for adults with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Color. Dis. 2022, 37, 2263–2276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. McFarland, L.V.; Karakan, T.; Karatas, A. Strain-specific and outcome-specific efficacy of probiotics for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. eClinicalMedicine 2021, 41, 101154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Lei, Y.; Sun, X.; Ruan, T.; Lu, W.; Deng, B.; Zhou, R.; Mu, D. Effects of probiotics and diet management in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Nutr. Rev. 2025, 83, 1743–1756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Anwar, D.F.F.; Salma, Z.N.; Oktaviani, S.D.; Adiyatma, F.N.; Tauhid, F.M.; Mustofa, A.; Saputra, P.B.T.; Karimah, R.; Alkaff, F.F. Effect of multistrain probiotics on symptom severity in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of irritable bowel syndrome-symptom severity score outcomes. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zeraattalab-Motlagh, S.; Ranjbar, M.; Mohammadi, H.; Adibi, P. Nutritional interventions in adult patients with irritable bowel syndrome: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials. Nutr. Rev. 2025, 83, e1343–e1354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rokkas, T.; Ekmektzoglou, K.; Tsanou, E.; Bricca, L.; Menni, A.E.; Golfakis, P.; Kotzampassi, K. Comparative effectiveness and safety of probiotics with psychotropic potential in irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2026, 38, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yu, Q.X.; Wang, D.D.; Dong, P.J.; Zheng, L.H. Probiotics combined with trimebutine for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2025, 40, 677–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Yoon, H.; Park, Y.S.; Lee, D.H.; Seo, J.G.; Shin, C.M.; Kim, N. Effect of administering a multi-species probiotic mixture on fecal microbiota and symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome: A randomized controlled trial. J. Clin. Biochem. Nutr. 2015, 57, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Søndergaard, B.; Olsson, J.; Ohlson, K.; Svensson, U.; Bytzer, P.; Ekesbo, R. Effects of probiotic fermented milk on symptoms and intestinal flora in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: A randomized controlled trial. Scand. J. Gastroenterol. 2011, 46, 663–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Simrén, M.; Öhman, L.; Olsson, J.; Svensson, U.; Ohlson, K.; Posserud, I.; Strid, H. Clinical trial: Effects of a fermented milk containing three probiotic bacteria in irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2010, 31, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cha, B.K.; Jung, S.M.; Choi, C.H.; Song, I.D.; Lee, H.W.; Kim, H.J.; Chang, S.K.; Kim, K.; Chung, W.S.; Seo, J.G. Effect of a multispecies probiotic mixture in diarrhea-dominant irritable bowel syndrome. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2012, 46, 220–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ko, S.J.; Han, G.; Kim, S.K.; Seo, J.G.; Chung, W.S.; Ryu, B.; Kim, J.; Yeo, I.; Lee, B.J.; Lee, J.M.; et al. Effect of Korean herbal medicine combined with a probiotic mixture on diarrhea-dominant irritable bowel syndrome. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2013, 2013, 824605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kim, H.J.; Camilleri, M.; McKinzie, S.; Lempke, M.B.; Burton, D.D.; Thomforde, G.M.; Zinsmeister, A.R. A randomized controlled trial of a probiotic, VSL#3, in diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2003, 17, 895–904. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  45. Kim, H.J.; Vazquez Roque, M.I.; Camilleri, M.; Stephens, D.; Burton, D.D.; Baxter, K.; Thomforde, G.; Zinsmeister, A.R. A randomized controlled trial of probiotic combination VSL#3 in irritable bowel syndrome with bloating. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2005, 17, 687–696. [Google Scholar]
  46. Guandalini, S.; Magazzù, G.; Chiaro, A.; La Balestra, V.; Di Nardo, G.; Gopalan, S.; Sibal, A.; Romano, C.; Canani, R.B.; Lionetti, P.; et al. VSL#3 improves symptoms in children with irritable bowel syndrome. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 2010, 51, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Staudacher, H.M.; Lomer, M.C.E.; Farquharson, F.M.; Louis, P.; Fava, F.; Franciosi, E.; Scholz, M.; Tuohy, K.M.; Lindsay, J.O.; Irving, P.M.; et al. A diet low in FODMAPs reduces symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome and a probiotic restores bifidobacteria. Gastroenterology 2017, 153, 936–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Guyonnet, D.; Chassany, O.; Ducrotté, P.; Picard, C.; Mouret, M.; Mercier, C.H.; Matuchansky, C. Effect of fermented milk containing Bifidobacterium animalis DN-173 010 in irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2007, 26, 475–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Agrawal, A.; Houghton, L.A.; Morris, J.; Reilly, B.; Guyonnet, D.; Goupil Feuillerat, N.; Schlumberger, A.; Jakob, S.; Whorwell, P.J. Fermented milk containing Bifidobacterium lactis DN-173 010 in IBS with constipation. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2009, 29, 104–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kajander, K.; Hatakka, K.; Poussa, T.; Färkkilä, M.; Korpela, R. A probiotic mixture alleviates symptoms in irritable bowel syndrome patients: A controlled 6-month intervention. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2005, 22, 387–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Rogha, M.; Esfahani, M.Z.; Zargarzadeh, A.H. The efficacy of a synbiotic containing Bacillus coagulans in irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. Bed Bench 2014, 7, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  52. Urgesi, R.; Casale, C.; Pistelli, R.; Rapaccini, G.L.; de Vitis, I. Efficacy and safety of simethicone plus Bacillus coagulans in irritable bowel syndrome. Eur. Rev. Med. Pharmacol. Sci. 2014, 18, 1344–1353. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  53. Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2021, 372, n160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Sterne, J.A.C.; Savović, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I.; Cates, C.J.; Cheng, H.Y.; Corbett, M.S.; Eldridge, S.M.; et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019, 366, l4898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Charbonneau, D.; Gibb, R.D.; Quigley, E.M. Fecal excretion of Bifidobacterium infantis 35624 after oral supplementation. Gut Microbes 2013, 4, 201–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. O’Mahony, L.; McCarthy, J.; Kelly, P.; Hurley, G.; Luo, F.; Chen, K.; O’Sullivan, G.C.; Kiely, B.; Collins, J.K.; Shanahan, F.; et al. Lactobacillus and bifidobacterium in irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 2005, 128, 541–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Whorwell, P.J.; Altringer, L.; Morel, J.; Bond, Y.; Charbonneau, D.; O’Mahony, L.; Kiely, B.; Shanahan, F.; Quigley, E.M. Efficacy of Bifidobacterium infantis 35624 in women with irritable bowel syndrome. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2006, 101, 1581–1590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bauserman, M.; Michail, S. The use of Lactobacillus GG in irritable bowel syndrome in children: A double-blind randomized controlled trial. J. Pediatr. 2005, 147, 197–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Francavilla, R.; Miniello, V.; Magistà, A.M.; De Canio, A.; Bucci, N.; Gagliardi, F.; Lionetti, E.; Castellaneta, S.; Polimeno, L.; Peccarisi, L.; et al. A randomized controlled trial of Lactobacillus GG in children with functional abdominal pain. Pediatrics 2010, 126, e1445–e1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gawrońska, A.; Dziechciarz, P.; Horvath, A.; Szajewska, H. A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of Lactobacillus GG for abdominal pain disorders in children. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2007, 25, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kianifar, H.; Jafari, S.A.; Kiani, M.; Ahanchian, H.; Ghasemi, S.V.; Grover, Z.; Mahmoodi, L.Z.; Bagherian, R.; Khalesi, M. Probiotic for irritable bowel syndrome in pediatric patients: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Electron. Physician 2015, 7, 1255–1260. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  62. O’Sullivan, M.A.; O’Morain, C.A. Bacterial supplementation in the irritable bowel syndrome: A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study. Dig. Liver Dis. 2000, 32, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Ducrotté, P.; Sawant, P.; Jayanthi, V. Clinical trial: Lactobacillus plantarum 299v (DSM 9843) improves symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. World J. Gastroenterol. 2012, 18, 4012–4018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Moeen-Ul-Haq; Babar, A.N.; Hassan, M.K.; Ullah, F.; Ullah, A. Role of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v versus placebo in symptomatic improvement of irritable bowel syndrome patients. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2022, 72, 404–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Niedzielin, K.; Kordecki, H.; Birkenfeld, B. A controlled, double-blind, randomized study on the efficacy of Lactobacillus plantarum 299V in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2001, 13, 1143–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nobaek, S.; Johansson, M.L.; Molin, G.; Ahrné, S.; Jeppsson, B. Alteration of intestinal microflora is associated with reduction in abdominal bloating and pain in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2000, 95, 1231–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Stevenson, C.; Blaauw, R.; Fredericks, E.; Visser, J.; Roux, S. Randomized clinical trial: Effect of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v on symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome. Nutrition 2014, 30, 1151–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Stevenson, C.; Blaauw, R.; Fredericks, E.; Visser, J.; Roux, S. Probiotic effect and dietary correlations on faecal microbiota profiles in irritable bowel syndrome. S. Afr. J. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 34, 84–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Faghihi, A.H.; Agah, S.; Masoudi, M.; Ghafoori, S.M.; Eshraghi, A. Efficacy of probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: A double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial. Acta Med. Indones. 2015, 47, 201–208. [Google Scholar]
  70. Kruis, W.; Chrubasik, S.; Boehm, S.; Stange, C.; Schulze, J. A double-blind placebo-controlled trial of probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 in subgroups of patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Int. J. Color. Dis. 2012, 27, 467–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Gayathri, R.; Aruna, T.; Malar, S.; Shilpa, B.; Dhanasekar, K.R. Efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-3856 as add-on therapy for irritable bowel syndrome. Int. J. Color. Dis. 2020, 35, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Mourey, F.; Decherf, A.C.; Jeanne, J.F.; Clément-Ziza, M.; Grisoni, M.L.; Machuron, F.; Legrain-Raspaud, S.; Bourreille, A.; Desreumaux, P. Saccharomyces cerevisiae I-3856 in irritable bowel syndrome with predominant constipation. World J. Gastroenterol. 2022, 28, 2509–2522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Pineton de Chambrun, G.; Neut, C.; Chau, A.; Cazaubiel, M.; Pelerin, F.; Justen, P.; Desreumaux, P. A randomized clinical trial of Saccharomyces cerevisiae versus placebo in irritable bowel syndrome. Dig. Liver Dis. 2015, 47, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Spiller, R.; Pélerin, F.; Cayzeele Decherf, A.; Maudet, C.; Housez, B.; Cazaubiel, M.; Jüsten, P. Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-3856 in irritable bowel syndrome. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 2016, 4, 353–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kim, J.Y.; Park, Y.J.; Lee, H.J.; Park, M.Y.; Kwon, O. Effect of Lactobacillus gasseri BNR17 on irritable bowel syndrome: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2017, 27, 853–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Shin, S.P.; Choi, Y.M.; Kim, W.H.; Hong, S.P.; Park, J.M.; Kim, J.; Kwon, O.; Lee, E.H.; Hahm, K.B. Lactobacillus gasseri BNR17 mitigates diarrhea-dominant irritable bowel syndrome. J. Clin. Biochem. Nutr. 2018, 62, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Madempudi, R.S.; Ahire, J.J.; Neelamraju, J.; Tripathi, A.; Nanal, S. Randomized clinical trial: The effect of probiotic Bacillus coagulans Unique IS2 vs. placebo on the symptoms management of irritable bowel syndrome in adults. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 12210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sudha, M.R.; Jayanthi, N.; Aasin, M.; Dhanashri, R.D.; Anirudh, T. Efficacy of Bacillus coagulans Unique IS2 in children with irritable bowel syndrome. Benef. Microbes 2018, 9, 563–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bennani, A. Essai randomisé de Saccharomyces boulardii dans le traitement des colopathies fonctionnelles. L’Objectif Médical 1990, 73, 56–61. [Google Scholar]
  80. Maupas, J.L.; Champemont, P.; Delforge, M. Traitement des colopathies fonctionnelles: Essai en double aveugle de Saccharomyces boulardii. Med. Chir. Dig. 1983, 12, 77–79. [Google Scholar]
  81. Abbas, Z.; Yakoob, J.; Jafri, W.; Ahmad, Z.; Azam, Z.; Usman, M.W.; Shamim, S.; Islam, M. Cytokine and clinical response to Saccharomyces boulardii therapy in diarrhea-dominant irritable bowel syndrome. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014, 26, 630–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Choi, C.H.; Jo, S.Y.; Park, H.J.; Chang, S.K.; Byeon, J.S.; Myung, S.J. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of Saccharomyces boulardii in irritable bowel syndrome. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2011, 45, 679–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Kabir, M.A.; Ishaque, S.M.; Ali, M.S.; Mahmuduzzaman, M.; Hasan, M. Role of Saccharomyces boulardii in diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Mymensingh Med. J. 2011, 20, 397–401. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  84. Majeed, M.; Nagabhushanam, K.; Natarajan, S.; Sivakumar, A.; Ali, F.; Pande, A.; Majeed, S.; Karri, S.K. Bacillus coagulans MTCC 5856 in diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Nutr. J. 2016, 15, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Majeed, M.; Nagabhushanam, K.; Arumugam, S.; Majeed, S.; Ali, F. Bacillus coagulans MTCC 5856 for the management of major depression with irritable bowel syndrome: A randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled, multi-centre, pilot clinical study. Food Nutr. Res. 2018, 62, 1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Thijssen, A.Y.; Clemens, C.H.; Vankerckhoven, V.; Goossens, H.; Jonkers, D.M.; Masclee, A.A. Efficacy of Lactobacillus casei Shirota in irritable bowel syndrome. Eur. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2016, 28, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Dolin, B.J. Effects of a proprietary Bacillus coagulans preparation in diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Methods Find. Exp. Clin. Pharmacol. 2009, 31, 655–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Hun, L. Bacillus coagulans significantly improved abdominal pain and bloating in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Postgrad. Med. 2009, 121, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Andresen, V.; Gschossmann, J.; Layer, P. Heat-inactivated Bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75 (SYN-HI-001) in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Lancet Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 5, 658–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Li, X.; Yuan, Q.; Huang, H.; Wang, L. Gut microbiota in irritable bowel syndrome: A narrative review of mechanisms and microbiome-based therapies. Front. Immunol. 2025, 16, 1695321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kezer, G.; Paramithiotis, S.; Khwaldia, K.; Harahap, I.A.; Čagalj, M.; Šimat, V.; Smaoui, S.; Elfalleh, W.; Ozogul, F.; Esatbeyoglu, T. A comprehensive overview of the effects of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics on the gut-brain axis. Front. Microbiol. 2025, 16, 1651965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Rana, A.; Smriti. Probiotics: Mechanism of action and gastrointestinal health: Gut guardians: Unlocking the power of probiotics. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Saulnier, D.M.; Ringel, Y.; Heyman, M.B.; Foster, J.A.; Bercik, P.; Shulman, R.J.; Versalovic, J.; Verdu, E.F.; Dinan, T.G.; Hecht, G.; et al. The intestinal microbiome, probiotics and prebiotics in neurogastroenterology. Gut Microbes 2013, 4, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Amirimani, B.; Nikfam, S.; Albaji, M.; Vahedi, S.; Nasseri-Moghaddam, S.; Sharafkhah, M.; Ansari, R.; Vahedi, H. Probiotic vs. Placebo in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Middle East. J. Dig. Dis. 2013, 5, 98–102. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  95. Pinto-Sanchez, M.I.; Hall, G.B.; Ghajar, K.; Nardelli, A.; Bolino, C.; Lau, J.T.; Martin, F.P.; Cominetti, O.; Welsh, C.; Rieder, A.; et al. Probiotic Bifidobacterium longum NCC3001 Reduces Depression Scores and Alters Brain Activity: A Pilot Study in Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Gastroenterology 2017, 153, 448–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ligaarden, S.C.; Axelsson, L.; Naterstad, K.; Lydersen, S.; Farup, P.G. A candidate probiotic with unfavourable effects in subjects with irritable bowel syndrome: A randomised controlled trial. BMC Gastroenterol. 2010, 10, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Farup, P.G.; Jacobsen, M.; Ligaarden, S.C.; Rudi, K. Probiotics, symptoms, and gut microbiota: What are the relations? A randomized controlled trial in subjects with irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterol. Res. Pract. 2012, 2012, 214102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Skrzydło-Radomańska, B.; Prozorow-Król, B.; Kurzeja-Mirosław, A.; Cichoż-Lach, H.; Laskowska, K.; Majsiak, E.; Bierła, J.B.; Agnieszka, S.; Cukrowska, B. The Efficacy and Safety of Single-Strain Probiotic Formulations Containing Bifidobacterium lactis or Bacillus coagulans in Adult Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome-A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Three-Arm Interventional Trial. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 4838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Shaikh, S.S.; Kumar, S. Role of Bacillus coagulans (Heyndrickxia coagulans) BCP92 in managing irritable bowel syndrome: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Medicine 2024, 103, e39134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Gupta, A.K.; Maity, C. Efficacy and safety of Bacillus coagulans LBSC in irritable bowel syndrome: A prospective, interventional, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study [CONSORT Compliant]. Medicine 2021, 100, e23641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kallur, R.K.; Madapati, S.; Mathur, A.; Bhattacharya, S. The role of Weizmannia (Bacillus) coagulans LMG S-31876 in treating IBS-diarrhea. Front. Nutr. 2024, 10, 1310462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Garvey, S.M.; Mah, E.; Blonquist, T.M.; Kaden, V.N.; Spears, J.L. The probiotic Bacillus subtilis BS50 decreases gastrointestinal symptoms in healthy adults: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Gut Microbes 2022, 14, 2122668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. JanssenDuijghuijsen, L.; van den Belt, M.; Rijnaarts, I.; Vos, P.; Guillemet, D.; Witteman, B.; de Wit, N. Acacia fiber or probiotic supplements to relieve gastrointestinal complaints in patients with constipation-predominant IBS: A 4-week randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled intervention trial. Eur. J. Nutr. 2024, 63, 1983–1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Guglielmetti, S.; Mora, D.; Gschwender, M.; Popp, K. Randomised clinical trial: Bifidobacterium bifidum MIMBb75 significantly alleviates irritable bowel syndrome and improves quality of life--a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2011, 33, 1123–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Lewis, E.D.; Antony, J.M.; Crowley, D.C.; Piano, A.; Bhardwaj, R.; Tompkins, T.A.; Evans, M. Efficacy of Lactobacillus paracasei HA-196 and Bifidobacterium longum R0175 in Alleviating Symptoms of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS): A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Srivastava, S.; Basak, U.; Naghibi, M.; Vijayakumar, V.; Parihar, R.; Patel, J.; Jadon, P.S.; Pandit, A.; Dargad, R.R.; Khanna, S.; et al. A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of live Bifidobacterium longum CECT 7347 (ES1) and heat-treated Bifidobacterium longum CECT 7347 (HT-ES1) in participants with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Gut Microbes 2024, 16, 2338322. [Google Scholar]
  107. Niv, E.; Naftali, T.; Hallak, R.; Vaisman, N. The efficacy of Lactobacillus reuteri ATCC 55730 in the treatment of patients with irritable bowel syndrome—A double blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study. Clin Nutr. 2005, 24, 925–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Martoni, C.J.; Srivastava, S.; Leyer, G.J. Lactobacillus acidophilus DDS-1 and Bifidobacterium lactis UABla-12 Improve Abdominal Pain Severity and Symptomology in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Randomized Controlled Trial. Nutrients 2020, 12, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Enck, P.; Zimmermann, K.; Menke, G.; Klosterhalfen, S. Randomized controlled treatment trial of irritable bowel syndrome with a probiotic E.-coli preparation (DSM17252) compared to placebo. Z. Gastroenterol. 2009, 47, 209–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Kwon, H.; Nam, E.H.; Kim, H.; Jo, H.; Bang, W.Y.; Lee, M.; Shin, H.; Kim, D.; Kim, J.; Kim, H.; et al. Effect of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus IDCC 3201 on irritable bowel syndrome with constipation: A randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled trial. Sci Rep. 2024, 14, 22384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Jung, K.; Kim, A.; Lee, J.H.; Cho, D.; Seo, J.; Jung, E.S.; Kang, H.J.; Roh, J.; Kim, W. Effect of Oral Intake of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum APsulloc 331261 (GTB1TM) on Diarrhea-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Martoni, C.J.; Srivastava, S.; Damholt, A.; Leyer, G.J. Efficacy and dose response of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum in diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. World J. Gastroenterol. 2023, 29, 4451–4465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Kim, N.H.; Choi, H.S.; Lee, M.Y.; Seong, H.; Han, N.S.; Hu, H.J.; Kim, Y.S.; Park, J.H. The Effects of Fermented Rice Drink with Lactiplantibacillus plantarum JSA22 in Overweight Irritable Bowel Syndrome Patients: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Study. J. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2024, 30, 194–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Yang, B.; Yue, Y.; Chen, Y.; Ding, M.; Li, B.; Wang, L.; Wang, Q.; Stanton, C.; Ross, R.P.; Zhao, J.; et al. Lactobacillus plantarum CCFM1143 Alleviates Chronic Diarrhea via Inflammation Regulation and Gut Microbiota Modulation: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study. Front. Immunol. 2021, 12, 746585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Lyra, A.; Hillilä, M.; Huttunen, T.; Männikkö, S.; Taalikka, M.; Tennilä, J.; Tarpila, A.; Lahtinen, S.; Ouwehand, A.C.; Veijola, L. Irritable bowel syndrome symptom severity improves equally with probiotic and placebo. World J. Gastroenterol. 2016, 22, 10631–10642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Sinn, D.H.; Song, J.H.; Kim, H.J.; Lee, J.H.; Son, H.J.; Chang, D.K.; Kim, Y.H.; Kim, J.J.; Rhee, J.C.; Rhee, P.L. Therapeutic effect of Lactobacillus acidophilus-SDC 2012, 2013 in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Dig Dis Sci. 2008, 53, 2714–2718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Murakami, K.; Habukawa, C.; Nobuta, Y.; Moriguchi, N.; Takemura, T. The effect of Lactobacillus brevis KB290 against irritable bowel syndrome: A placebo-controlled double-blind crossover trial. Biopsychosoc. Med. 2012, 6, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Dapoigny, M.; Piche, T.; Ducrotte, P.; Lunaud, B.; Cardot, J.M.; Bernalier-Donadille, A. Efficacy and safety profile of LCR35 complete freeze-dried culture in irritable bowel syndrome: A randomized, double-blind study. World J. Gastroenterol. 2012, 18, 2067–2075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Nobutani, K.; Sawada, D.; Fujiwara, S.; Kuwano, Y.; Nishida, K.; Nakayama, J.; Kutsumi, H.; Azuma, T.; Rokutan, K. The effects of administration of the Lactobacillus gasseri strain CP2305 on quality of life, clinical symptoms and changes in gene expression in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 122, 212–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Cremon, C.; Guglielmetti, S.; Gargari, G.; Taverniti, V.; Castellazzi, A.M.; Valsecchi, C.; Tagliacarne, C.; Fiore, W.; Bellini, M.; Bertani, L.; et al. Effect of Lactobacillus paracasei CNCM I-1572 on symptoms, gut microbiota, short chain fatty acids, and immune activation in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: A pilot randomized clinical trial. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 2018, 6, 604–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Liu, Y.; Yu, X.; Yu, L.; Tian, F.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, H.; Qian, L.; Wang, Q.; Xue, Z.; Zhai, Q.; et al. Lactobacillus plantarum CCFM8610 Alleviates Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Prevents Gut Microbiota Dysbiosis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Pilot Clinical Trial. Engineering 2021, 7, 376–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Lin, T.H.; Shih, T.W.; Lin, C.H. Effects of Lactocaseibacillus paracasei subsp. paracasei NTU 101 on gut microbiota: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2024, 104, 9494–9505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. König, J.; Roca Rubio, M.F.; Forsgård, R.A.; Rode, J.; Axelsson, J.; Grompone, G.; Brummer, R.J. The effects of a 6-week intervention with Limosilactobacillus reuteri ATCC PTA 6475 alone and in combination with L. reuteri DSM 17938 on gut barrier function, immune markers, and symptoms in patients with IBS-D-An exploratory RCT. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0312464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMAScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 15 01152 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for the systematic review.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram for the systematic review.
Jcm 15 01152 g001
Jcm 15 01152 g002
Figure 2. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Bifidobacterium longum 35624 on the severity of abdominal pain (a), straining/difficulty during defecation (b), symptoms in general (c), bloating (d), urgency (e), a feeling of incomplete evacuation (f), and passage of gas (g) in irritable bowel syndrome.
Figure 2. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Bifidobacterium longum 35624 on the severity of abdominal pain (a), straining/difficulty during defecation (b), symptoms in general (c), bloating (d), urgency (e), a feeling of incomplete evacuation (f), and passage of gas (g) in irritable bowel syndrome.
Jcm 15 01152 g002
Jcm 15 01152 g003
Figure 3. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG on the severity of abdominal pain in irritable bowel syndrome.
Figure 3. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG on the severity of abdominal pain in irritable bowel syndrome.
Jcm 15 01152 g003
Jcm 15 01152 g004
Figure 4. Funnel plots for assessment of publication bias in a meta-analysis of the results of a study on the efficacy of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (a) and Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-3856 (b) in the treatment of abdominal pain in IBS.
Figure 4. Funnel plots for assessment of publication bias in a meta-analysis of the results of a study on the efficacy of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (a) and Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-3856 (b) in the treatment of abdominal pain in IBS.
Jcm 15 01152 g004
Jcm 15 01152 g005
Figure 5. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v on the severity of abdominal pain (a), bloating/flatulence (b), feeling of incomplete evacuation/disordered defecation function (c), digestive symptoms in general (d), abdominal pain improvement rate (e), flatulence improvement rate (f), constipation improvement rate (g), and rate of improvement of digestive symptoms in general (h) in irritable bowel syndrome.
Figure 5. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Lactobacillus plantarum 299v on the severity of abdominal pain (a), bloating/flatulence (b), feeling of incomplete evacuation/disordered defecation function (c), digestive symptoms in general (d), abdominal pain improvement rate (e), flatulence improvement rate (f), constipation improvement rate (g), and rate of improvement of digestive symptoms in general (h) in irritable bowel syndrome.
Jcm 15 01152 g005
Jcm 15 01152 g006
Figure 6. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 on abdominal pain improvement rate (a) and urgency improvement rate (b) in irritable bowel syndrome.
Figure 6. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 on abdominal pain improvement rate (a) and urgency improvement rate (b) in irritable bowel syndrome.
Jcm 15 01152 g006
Jcm 15 01152 g007
Figure 7. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-3856 on abdominal pain severity (a) and improvement rate (b), bloating severity (c), and Bristol Stool Scale improvement (d) in irritable bowel syndrome.
Figure 7. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-3856 on abdominal pain severity (a) and improvement rate (b), bloating severity (c), and Bristol Stool Scale improvement (d) in irritable bowel syndrome.
Jcm 15 01152 g007
Jcm 15 01152 g008
Figure 8. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Lactobacillus gasseri BNR17 on severity of abdominal pain (a) and bloating (b) in irritable bowel syndrome.
Figure 8. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Lactobacillus gasseri BNR17 on severity of abdominal pain (a) and bloating (b) in irritable bowel syndrome.
Jcm 15 01152 g008
Jcm 15 01152 g009
Figure 9. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Bacillus coagulans Unique IS2 on severity of abdominal pain (a), bloating (b), urgency (c), incomplete evacuation (d), straining (e), flatulence (f), bowel habit dissatisfaction (g), and IBS symptoms in general (h), as well as the frequency of normalization of stool consistency after taking this probiotic compared with placebo (i).
Figure 9. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Bacillus coagulans Unique IS2 on severity of abdominal pain (a), bloating (b), urgency (c), incomplete evacuation (d), straining (e), flatulence (f), bowel habit dissatisfaction (g), and IBS symptoms in general (h), as well as the frequency of normalization of stool consistency after taking this probiotic compared with placebo (i).
Jcm 15 01152 g009
Jcm 15 01152 g010
Figure 10. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745 on rate of patients with significant reductions in abdominal pain (a), as well as on severity of abdominal pain (b), bloating (c), urgency (d), straining (e), incomplete evacuation (f), and passage of mucus (g).
Figure 10. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I-745 on rate of patients with significant reductions in abdominal pain (a), as well as on severity of abdominal pain (b), bloating (c), urgency (d), straining (e), incomplete evacuation (f), and passage of mucus (g).
Jcm 15 01152 g010
Jcm 15 01152 g011
Figure 11. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Bacillus coagulans MTCC 5856 on quality of life of IBS patients.
Figure 11. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Bacillus coagulans MTCC 5856 on quality of life of IBS patients.
Jcm 15 01152 g011
Jcm 15 01152 g012
Figure 12. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Lactobacillus casei Shirota on severity of abdominal pain (a), bloating (b), flatulence (c), and IBS symptoms in general (d).
Figure 12. Meta-analysis of studies on the effect of Lactobacillus casei Shirota on severity of abdominal pain (a), bloating (b), flatulence (c), and IBS symptoms in general (d).
Jcm 15 01152 g012
Table 1. Main characteristics of the included studies.
Table 1. Main characteristics of the included studies.
StudyCountryProbioticStrainDoseDura-TionProbiotic/Placebo (Pr/Pl)Rome CriteriaIBS Pattern (D/C/M/U)Male/
Female		Mean Age (Pr/Pl)
Charbonneau D 2013 [55]USABifidobacterium infantis35624109 cells/d8 wk39/37IIND14/6247/43
O’Mahony L 2005 [56]IrelandBifidobacterium infantis356241010 cells/d8 wk22/22II21/20/34/027/4844
Whorwell PJ 2006 [57]UKBifidobacterium infantis35624108 cells/d4 wk72/76II163/60/70/00/14843/42
Bauserman M 2005 [58]USALactobacillus rhamnosusGG2 × 1010 cells/d6 wk25/25IIND10/4012/12
Francavilla R 2010 [59]ItalyLactobacillus rhamnosusGG6 × 109 cells/d8 wk67/69IIND78/477/6
Gawrońska A 2007 [60]PolandLactobacillus rhamnosusGG6 × 109 cells/d4 wk18/19IINDND12/11
Kianifar H 2015 [61]IranLactobacillus rhamnosusGG2 × 1010 cells/d4 wk26/26III9/12/31/027/257/7
O’Sullivan MA 2000 [62]IrelandLactobacillus rhamnosusGG4×1010 cells/d4 wk24/19IND3/1639
Ducrotté P 2012 [63]France+ IndiaLactobacillus plantarum299v1010 cells/d4 wk105/99IIIND151/6337/38
Moeen-Ul-Haq 2022 [64]PakistanLactobacillus plantarum299v5 × 1010 cells/d4 wk55/53III33/28/47/063/4538/34
Niedzielin 2001 [65]PolandLactobacillus plantarum299v2 × 1010 cells/d4 wk20/20Manning criteriaND8/3245
Nobaek S. 2000 [66]SwedenLactobacillus plantarum299v2 × 1010 cells/d4 wk25/27IND16/3651/46
Stevenson C. 2014 [67]South AfricaLactobacillus plantarum299v1010 cells/d8 wk23 + 17/25IIND2/7948/47
Stevenson C. 2021 [68]South AfricaLactobacillus plantarum299v1010 cells/d8 wk35/17II28/24/0/01/5152/46
Faghihi AH 2015 [69]IranEscherichia coliNissle 1917ND6 wk67/69II49/55/30/068/7139/38
Kruis W 2012 [70]GermanyEscherichia coliNissle 19170.5–5×1010 cells/d12 wk54/49II35/54/71/028/9246/45
Gayathri R 2020 [71]IndiaSaccharomyces cerevisiaeCNCM I-38564 × 109 cells/d8 wk48/44III61/20/11/066/3442/40
Mourey F 2022 [72]FranceSaccharomyces cerevisiaeCNCM I-38568 × 109 cells/d8 wk208/201IV0/409/0/086/39241/40
Pineton G 2015 [73]FranceSaccharomyces cerevisiaeCNCM I-38568 × 109 cells/d8 wk86/93III51/84/44/025/15443/45
Spiller R 2016 [74]FranceSaccharomyces cerevisiaeCNCM I-38568 × 109 cells/d12 wk132/131III79/180/120/062/31745/45
Kim JY 2017 [75]KoreaLactobacillus gasseriBNR17 10 × 109 cells/d4 wk10/12NDND13/929/27
Shin 2018 [76]KoreaLactobacillus gasseriBNR1710 × 109 cells/d8 wk24/27III51/0/0/022/2935/38
Madempudi RS 2019 [77]IndiaBacillus coagulansUnique IS22 × 109 cells/d8 wk53/55III3/35/70/078/3044/42
Sudha MR 2018 [78]IndiaBacillus coagulansUnique IS2ND8 wk72/69III58/73/10/080/618/8
Bennani A 1990 [79]FranceSaccharomyces boulardiiCNCM I-745500 mg/d30 days28/34ND27/10/18/019/4335
Maupas JL. 1983 [80]FranceSaccharomyces boulardiiCNCM I-7459 caps/d1 mo16/18NDND20/1442
Abbas Z 2014 [81]PakistanSaccharomyces boulardiiCNCM I-745750 mg/d6 wk37/35III72/0/0/053/1938/33
Choi CH 2011 [82]KoreaSaccharomyces boulardiiCNCM I-7458×1011 cells/d4 wk45/45II53/0/21/037/3740/41
Majeed M 2016 [83]IndiaBacillus coagulansMTCC 58562 × 109 cells/d90 days18/18III36/0/0/017/1936/35
Majeed M 2018 [84]IndiaBacillus coagulansMTCC 58562 × 109 cells/d90 days20/20IIIND6/3440/44
Thijssen AY 2016 [85]NetherlandsLactobacillus caseiShirota6.5 × 109 cells/d8 wk39/41II24/20/23/1325/5541/42
Yao CK 2015 [86]AustraliaLactobacillus caseiShirota6.5 × 109 cells/d6 wk24/21III17/17/15/710/4641/31
Note: ND—no data.
Table 2. Parameters reported in the included studies.
Table 2. Parameters reported in the included studies.
StudySymptom ScaleIBS Symptoms in GeneralAbdominal PainBloatingUrgencyStrainingIncomplete EvacuationPassage of MucusFlatulenceStool ConsistencyNumber of Bowel HabitsQoL ScaleAdverse
Effects
Charbonneau D 20136-point scale++++++ +++ NSD
O’Mahony L 20057-point Likert scale+++ + IBS-QOLNSD
Whorwell PJ 20066-point scale++++++ + DCnMA NSD
Bauserman M 2005GSRS + ND
Francavilla R 201011-point VAS + NAE
Gawrońska A 2007Faces Pain Scale + NAE
Kianifar H 20155-point Likert scale + + NAE
O’Sullivan MA 20005-point Likert scale +++ DCnMA NSD
Ducrotté P 20124-point scaleCA++ + + NSD
Moeen-Ul-Haq 202211-point VAS ++ + ND
Niedzielin 200111-point scaleCACACA CA NAE
Nobaek S. 20008-point VAS++/CA+/CA + +CA NAE
Stevenson C. 2014FS-IBS-S+ QoL-IBSNSD
Stevenson C. 2021FS-IBS-S+ NSD
Faghihi AH 2015B-IBS-SQ+CA +/CACACACA CA ND
Kruis W 2012IMPSSCACACACA CA HRQLNSD
Gayathri R 20208-point Likert scale +/CA + NSD
Mourey F 20228-point Likert scale +/CA+ IBS-QOLNSD
Pineton G 20158-point Likert scale +/CA NSD
Spiller R 20168-point Likert scale+/CA+++ ++ IBS-QOLNSD
Kim JY 20175-point Likert scale ++ + ND
Shin 20186-point scale+++ +/CA IBS-QOLNSD
Madempudi RS 201911-point scale+/CA+/CA++++ +CA+ NAE
Sudha MR 201811-point Likert scale++/CA++++ +CA NSD
Bennani A 19904-point scaleDCnMACACA CA NAE
Maupas JL. 19835-point scaleDCnMACADCnMA DCnMA NAE
Abbas Z 20144-point scale++++++++++IBS-QOLNSD
Choi CH 20117-point Likert scale++++++++++IBS-QOLNSD
Majeed M 2016VAS ++ + IBS-QOLNSD
Majeed M 2018 Not assessed IBS-QOLNSD
Thijssen AY 20165-point Likert scale+++ + RAND-36NSD
Yao CK 2015VAS+++ + NSD
Note: B-IBS-SQ—Birmingham IBS Symptom Questionnaire; CA—categorical assessment (improvement/non-improvement); DCnMA—data cannot be meta-analyzed; IMPSS—Integrative Medicine Patient Satisfaction Scale; FS-IBS-S—Francis Severity IBS score; NAE—no adverse effects; ND—no data; NSD—no significant difference between probiotic and placebo groups; QoL—quality of life; VAS—visual analog scale.
Table 3. Assessment of biases in included studies.
Table 3. Assessment of biases in included studies.
StudyRDMiMeSO
Charbonneau D 2013++++++
O’Mahony L 2005???++?
Whorwell PJ 2006++++++
Bauserman M 2005+++?++
Francavilla R 2010++++++
Gawrońska A 2007++++++
Kianifar H 2015?+++++
O’Sullivan MA 2000?+??+?
Ducrotté P 2012++++++
Moeen-Ul-Haq 2022++++++
Niedzielin 2001??++++
Nobaek S. 2000++++++
Stevenson C 2014++++++
Stevenson C. 2021++++++
Faghihi AH 2015++??++
Kruis W 2012+++?++
Gayathri R 2020??++++
Mourey F 2022++++++
Pineton G 2015++?+++
Spiller R 2016++++++
Kim JY 2017++??++
Shin 2018?+??+?
Madempudi RS 2019++++++
Sudha MR 2018++++++
Bennani A 1990++++++
Maupas JL. 1983++??++
Abbas Z 2014++++++
Choi CH 2011++++++
Majeed M 2016++++++
Majeed M 2018++++++
Thijssen AY 2016++++++
Yao CK 2015?+++++
Note: green colour and “+” sign—low bias risk, yellow and “?” sign—moderate bias risk.
Table 4. Main results of efficacy of excluded probiotic strains in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).
Table 4. Main results of efficacy of excluded probiotic strains in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).
StudyProbioticStrainMain Effects
Skrzydło-Radomańska 2023 [98]Bacillus coagulansBC300 (DSM 33836)Pr reduced some IBS symptoms
Shaikh 2024 [99]Bacillus coagulansBCP92Pr reduced IBS severity
Dolin 2009 [87]Bacillus coagulansGBI-30, 608Pr reduced number of bowel movements
Hum 2009 [88]Bacillus coagulansGBI-30, 608Pr reduced severity of abdominal pain and bloating
Gupta 2021 [100]Bacillus coagulansLBSC (DSM17654)Pr reduced bloating, abdominal pain, diarrhea, constipation, stomach rumbling, nausea, vomiting, headache, and anxiety
Kallur 2024 [101]Bacillus coagulansLMG S-31876Pr reduced abdominal pain, bloating, and diarrhea
Garvey 2022 [102]Bacillus subtilisBS50Pr reduced bloating, burping, and flatulence
Guglielmetti 2011 [104]Bifidobacterium bifidumMIMBb75 (SYN-HI-001)Pr reduced global IBS symptoms, abdominal pain, bloating, and improved quality of life
Skrzydło-Radomańska 2023 [98]Bifidobacterium lactisBI040 (DSM 33812/34614)Pr reduced some IBS symptoms
JanssenDuijghuijsen 2024 [103]Bifidobacterium lactisBLa80Pr reduced IBS severity
Martoni 2020 [108]Bifidobacterium lactisUABla-12 Pr reduced abdominal pain and abdominal distension, normalized bowel habits and improved quality of life
Srivastava 2024 [106]Bifidobacterium longumCECT 7347Pr reduced IBS severity and improved quality of life
Pinto-Sanchez 2017 [95]Bifidobacterium longumNCC3001Pr increases quality of life; no significant effect on IBS symptoms
Lewis 2020 [105]Bifidobacterium longumR0175Pr reduced IBS severity and improved quality of life
Enck 2009 [109]Escherichia coliDSM17252Pr reduced IBS severity
Kwon 2024 [110]Lacticaseibacillus (Lactobacillus) rhamnosus IDCC 3201 (RH 3201)Pr reduced IBS severity
Dapoigny 2012 [118]Lacticaseibacillus (Lactobacillus) rhamnosusLCR35Pr had no effect in the whole IBS population
Jung 2022 [111]Lactiplantibacillus (Lactobacillus) plantarumAPsulloc 331261 (GTB1)Pr reduced abdominal pain, bloating, feeling of incomplete evacuation, diarrhea, and improved quality of life.
Yang 2021 [114]Lactiplantibacillus (Lactobacillus) plantarumCCFM1143Pr reduced IBS severity and improved quality of life
Liu 2021 [121]Lactiplantibacillus (Lactobacillus) plantarumCCFM8610Pr reduced IBS severity and improved quality of life
Kim 2024 [113]Lactiplantibacillus (Lactobacillus) plantarumJSA22 Pr reduced bloating
Martoni 2023 [112]Lactiplantibacillus (Lactobacillus) plantarumLpla33 (DSM34428)Pr reduced IBS severity
Ligaarden 2010 [96,97]Lactiplantibacillus (Lactobacillus) plantarumMF 1298Pr had unfavorable effect on IBS symptoms
Lyra 2016 [115]Lactobacillus acidophilusNCFMPr reduced moderate to severe abdominal pain, but not other IBS symptoms
Sinn 2008 [116]Lactobacillus acidophilusSDC 2012, 2013Pr reduced abdominal pain
Martoni 2020 [108]Lactobacillus acidophilusDDS-1Pr reduced abdominal pain and abdominal distension, normalized bowel habits and improved quality of life
Murakami 2012 [117]Lactobacillus brevisKB290Pr reduced abdominal pain
Nobutani 2017 [119]Lactobacillus gasseriCP2305Pr reduced IBS severity
O’Mahony 2005 [56]Lactobacillus salivariusUCC4331 Pr had minimal effect on IBS symptoms
Cremon 2018 [120]Lactocaseibacillus (Lactobacillus) paracaseiCNCM I-1572 Pr had no significant effect on IBS symptoms
Lewis 2020 [105]Lactocaseibacillus (Lactobacillus) paracaseiHA-196Pr reduced IBS severity and improved quality of life
Lin 2024 [122]Lactocaseibacillus (Lactobacillus) paracaseiNTU 101Pr improved peristalsis and shortened defecation interval
Niv 2005 [107]Limosilactobacillus (Lactobacillus) reuteriATCC 55730Pr had no significant effect on IBS symptoms
Konig 2024 [123]Limosilactobacillus (Lactobacillus) reuteriATCC PTA 6475Pr had no significant effect on IBS symptoms
Amirimani 2013 [94]Limosilactobacillus (Lactobacillus) reuteriDSM 17938No significant effect on abdominal pain, bloating, and other IBS symptoms
Note: Pr—probiotic.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Maslennikov, R.; Gosteeva, E.; Ananeva, V.; Korshunova, L.; Kravtsowa, A.; Poluektova, E.; Ulyanin, A.; Sigidaev, A.; Kikhasurova, P.; Ivashkin, V. Strain-Specific Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Probiotics Efficacy in the Treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome. J. Clin. Med. 2026, 15, 1152. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15031152

AMA Style

Maslennikov R, Gosteeva E, Ananeva V, Korshunova L, Kravtsowa A, Poluektova E, Ulyanin A, Sigidaev A, Kikhasurova P, Ivashkin V. Strain-Specific Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Probiotics Efficacy in the Treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2026; 15(3):1152. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15031152

Chicago/Turabian Style

Maslennikov, Roman, Eva Gosteeva, Vera Ananeva, Lada Korshunova, Anastasya Kravtsowa, Elena Poluektova, Anatoly Ulyanin, Alexey Sigidaev, Patimat Kikhasurova, and Vladimir Ivashkin. 2026. "Strain-Specific Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Probiotics Efficacy in the Treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome" Journal of Clinical Medicine 15, no. 3: 1152. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15031152

APA Style

Maslennikov, R., Gosteeva, E., Ananeva, V., Korshunova, L., Kravtsowa, A., Poluektova, E., Ulyanin, A., Sigidaev, A., Kikhasurova, P., & Ivashkin, V. (2026). Strain-Specific Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Probiotics Efficacy in the Treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 15(3), 1152. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15031152

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop