Online Information in Spanish on Probiotics, Yoghurt, Kefir, Kombucha, Fibre and Prebiotics: an Analysis of the Quality of Information and the Certainty of the Evidence Supporting Health Claims

Overview

Journal BMJ Open

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2022 Aug 3

PMID 35922106

Authors

Andreu Prados-Bo

Montserrat Rabassa

Mireia Bosch

Gonzalo Casino

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To examine the certainty of the evidence supporting health claims about probiotics, yoghurt, kefir, kombucha, fibre and prebiotics, and to assess the quality of online information in Spanish.

Design: Content analysis.

Methods: We compiled a data set of 114 web pages by searching six popular search phrases in Spanish relating to probiotics, yoghurt, kefir, kombucha, fibre and prebiotics on Google.es and coded them for typology and health claims. We examined the certainty of the evidence for health claims from systematic reviews. Information quality was assessed according to 10 criteria, where a web page: mentions scientific publications and reports their conclusions; quantifies relative and absolute effects; acknowledges some limitations; discusses certainty of evidence; reports the potential harms, alternatives and costs; and does not argue based on personal experiences.

Results: Gastrointestinal health (86.0%), general health (57.9%), cardiovascular health (53.5%) and immune system health (50.9%) were the most widely mentioned topics. Half of claims (52.6%, 70/133) were supported by evidence from systematic reviews. Probiotics had the highest number of claims supported by evidence and kombucha the lowest. The highest certainty was found for antibiotic-associated diarrhoea, necrotising enterocolitis and otitis (moderate) in probiotics and yoghurt, infectious diarrhoea and hepatic encephalopathy (moderate) in prebiotics, and cardiovascular health (high to moderate) and colorectal cancer (moderate) in fibre. On a scale of 0-10, the median information quality score for all web pages was 3. Only 18.4% reported study conclusions, 7.9% quantified the effects, 28.9% acknowledged some limitations in the research and 42.1% reported potential harms.

Conclusions: Most online health claims for dietary interventions intended for improving health through the gut microbiome are supported by low or very low certainty of evidence. Online information does not align with the evidence and is incomplete or unbalanced.

Citing Articles

Assessment of the quality of online information on dietary recommendations for inflammatory bowel disease.

Liu Y, He L, Guo H, Xiang L, Song X, Tan W Digit Health. 2024; 10:20552076241277033.

PMID: 39224792 PMC: 11367597. DOI: 10.1177/20552076241277033.

The individual-level effects of social media campaigns related to healthy eating, physical activity, and healthy weight: A narrative review.

Luo Y, Maafs-Rodriguez A, Hatfield D Obes Sci Pract. 2024; 10(1):e731.

PMID: 38187123 PMC: 10767147. DOI: 10.1002/osp4.731.

Oono F, Adachi R, Yaegashi A, Kishino M, Ogata R, Kinugawa A Public Health Nutr. 2023; 26(12):2815-2825.

PMID: 37955110 PMC: 10755443. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980023002549.

References

Alioshkin Cheneguin A, Salvat I, Romay Barrero H, Lacomba M . How good is online information on fibromyalgia? An analysis of quality and readability of websites on fibromyalgia in Spanish. BMJ Open. 2020; 10(7):e037065. PMC: 7337882. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037065. View

Murray N, Al Khalaf S, Kaulmann D, Lonergan E, Cryan J, Clarke G . Compositional and functional alterations in the oral and gut microbiota in patients with psychosis or schizophrenia: A systematic review. HRB Open Res. 2021; 4:108. PMC: 8634050. DOI: 10.12688/hrbopenres.13416.1. View

Hanage W . Microbiology: Microbiome science needs a healthy dose of scepticism. Nature. 2014; 512(7514):247-8. DOI: 10.1038/512247a. View

Brozek J, Akl E, Alonso-Coello P, Lang D, Jaeschke R, Williams J . Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Part 1 of 3. An overview of the GRADE approach and grading quality of evidence about interventions. Allergy. 2009; 64(5):669-77. DOI: 10.1111/j.1398-9995.2009.01973.x. View

Shi Q, Tan L, Liu C, Wang H, Zhang J, Wang H . Comparative efficacy of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for chronic idiopathic constipation in China: a Bayesian network meta-analysis. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2019; 19(1):311. PMC: 6857160. DOI: 10.1186/s12906-019-2741-z. View

Bafeta A, Koh M, Riveros C, Ravaud P . Harms Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials of Interventions Aimed at Modifying Microbiota: A Systematic Review. Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169(4):240-247. DOI: 10.7326/M18-0343. View

Kininmonth A, Jamil N, Almatrouk N, Evans C . Quality assessment of nutrition coverage in the media: a 6-week survey of five popular UK newspapers. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(12):e014633. PMC: 5770895. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014633. View

Bik E . The Hoops, Hopes, and Hypes of Human Microbiome Research. Yale J Biol Med. 2016; 89(3):363-373. PMC: 5045145. View

Alonso-Coello P, Rigau D, Sanabria A, Plaza V, Miravitlles M, Martinez L . Quality and strength: the GRADE system for formulating recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Arch Bronconeumol. 2013; 49(6):261-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.arbres.2012.12.001. View

10.

Besselink M, van Santvoort H, Buskens E, Boermeester M, Goor H, Timmerman H . Probiotic prophylaxis in predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2008; 371(9613):651-659. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60207-X. View

11.

Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann H, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl E, Davoli M . [GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction]. Gac Sanit. 2017; 32(2):166.e1-166.e10. DOI: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2017.02.010. View

12.

Kim E, Kim D, Yang S, Kim H . Validation of probiotic species or subspecies identity in commercial probiotic products using high-resolution PCR method based on large-scale genomic analysis. Food Res Int. 2022; 154:111011. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111011. View

13.

Connell M, Shin A, James-Stevenson T, Xu H, Imperiale T, Herron J . Systematic review and meta-analysis: Efficacy of patented probiotic, VSL#3, in irritable bowel syndrome. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2018; 30(12):e13427. PMC: 6249050. DOI: 10.1111/nmo.13427. View

14.

Kapp J, Sumner W . Kombucha: a systematic review of the empirical evidence of human health benefit. Ann Epidemiol. 2018; 30:66-70. DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.11.001. View

15.

Reid G, Gadir A, Dhir R . Probiotics: Reiterating What They Are and What They Are Not. Front Microbiol. 2019; 10:424. PMC: 6425910. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00424. View

16.

Mercer M, Brinich M, Geller G, Harrison K, Highland J, James K . How patients view probiotics: findings from a multicenter study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2011; 46(2):138-44. PMC: 3202682. DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e318225f545. View

17.

Brinich M, Mercer M, Sharp R . An analysis of online messages about probiotics. BMC Gastroenterol. 2013; 13:5. PMC: 3558380. DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-13-5. View

18.

Eysenbach G, Kohler C . How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ. 2002; 324(7337):573-7. PMC: 78994. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.324.7337.573. View

19.

Schmidt C . The startup bugs. Nat Biotechnol. 2013; 31(4):279-81. DOI: 10.1038/nbt.2544. View

20.

Shanahan F, Ghosh T, OToole P . The Healthy Microbiome-What Is the Definition of a Healthy Gut Microbiome?. Gastroenterology. 2020; 160(2):483-494. DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.09.057. View