Wir verwenden standardmäßig essenzielle Cookies (Anmeldung, deine gespeicherten Ziele/Stacks). Mit deiner Erlaubnis aktivieren wir außerdem datenschutzfreundliche Analytik (Vercel Web Analytics, anonyme Ladezeit-Metriken) und Fehler-Replay-Diagnostik (Sentry — DOM-Snapshots nur, wenn ein Fehler auftritt), damit wir Bugs schneller beheben können. Mehr über Cookies erfahren
Pro9.0
Probiotics – Forschung
Hilft wahrscheinlich
1.036 begutachtete Studien
Was die Evidenz sagt
Hilft wahrscheinlich
Probiotics scheint in 21 von 30 Studien mit messbaren Effekten zu helfen — die Evidenz tendiert klar ins Positive.
Die meiste Evidenz stammt aus hochwertigen Meta-Analysen und randomisierten Studien, veröffentlicht 2012–2026 mit einer typischen Studiengröße von 437 Teilnehmenden.
Basierend auf 1.036 Studien · 294 Meta-Analysen · 584 RCTs · 82,006 Teilnehmende insgesamt
Konfidenz
Hohe Konfidenz
Was die Studien gefunden haben
21geholfen3unklar6nicht geholfen· 1006 weitere ohne bewertete Effektdaten
Nach Outcome
Digestive healthVerbessertes Gleichgewicht des Darmmikrobioms und regelmäßigere Verdauung innerhalb von 2-4 Wochen · 2-4 Wochen
Hilft vermutlich857 Studien
Therapeutic & clinical
Hilft wahrscheinlich175 Studien
Women's healthLiefert essentielle Nährstoffe für eine gesunde Schwangerschaft · Fortlaufend
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung90 Studien
Depression & moodReduktion depressiver Symptome in klinischen Stichproben; der Nutzen bei Angstzuständen ist inkonsistent und abhängig von Stamm und Population · 4-8 Wochen
Hilft wahrscheinlich54 Studien
Glucose & metabolic
Hilft wahrscheinlich52 Studien
Weight management
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung47 Studien
Cognitive function
Hilft wahrscheinlich39 Studien
Anxiety & stressDie Evidenz zu Angstzuständen ist uneinheitlich — Metaanalysen zeigen in Allgemeinpopulationen keinen Effekt, mit Nutzen vorwiegend in klinisch diagnostizierten Stichproben · 4-8 Wochen
Hilft wahrscheinlich28 Studien
Immune supportKann Häufigkeit und Dauer von Atemwegsinfektionen verringern · 4-8 Wochen
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung20 Studien
Skin health
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung19 Studien
InflammationVerbesserte Verdauung und Regelmäßigkeit · 2-4 Wochen
Hilft vermutlich18 Studien
Liver health
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung17 Studien
Heart & blood pressure
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung14 Studien
Joint pain & arthritis
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung10 Studien
Cholesterol & lipids
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung9 Studien
Safety profile
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung9 Studien
Bone health
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung8 Studien
Sleep & insomnia
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung6 Studien
Fertility & reproductive
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung6 Studien
Energy & fatigue
Überwiegend Mechanismus / Beobachtung4 Studien
Vision & eye health
Zu wenige bewertete Studien2 Studien
In Zahlen
Aus 86 Studien mit messbaren Effekten gezogen
Wahrscheinlich echte Effekte
85%
über Studien hinweg
Untersuchte Personen
82k
typische Studie: 437 Personen
Stärkste Designs
878
294 gepoolt, 584 randomisiert
Zeigte Nutzen
70%
21/30 Studien
Wie lange Studien liefen
1–3 Monate
4
3+ Monate
1
Untersuchte Populationen
General population6
IBS patients3
Type 2 diabetes patients2
Cancer patients2
Aktives Forschungsgebiet
1.024 Studien in den letzten 5 Jahren · Neueste Meta-Analyse: 2026
201220192026
1Meta-Analysen=703 · large study2026
Further studies with longer follow-up durations are needed to confirm these findings and explore the long-term benefits of probiotics in this population.
Chiou YY, Chiu TY, Chen MJ. · Nutrients (2026)
Background Autoimmune diseases affect 5-10% of the global population.
Subgroup analysis revealed that in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, the probiotics group showed greater improvements in IL-6, IL-1β, and TNFα compared to the controls.
In multiple sclerosis (MS) patients, the probiotics group demonstrated greater improvements in hs-CRP.
2Depression symptomsMeta-AnalyseCited 23×n=1,401 · large study2025
Probiotics showed substantial reductions in depression symptoms and moderate reductions in anxiety symptoms.
Asad A et al. · Nutrition reviews (2025)
Sehr groß Nutzen
← SchlechterKein EffektBesser →
Probiotics demonstrated a significant reduction in depression symptoms (SMD: -0.96; 95% CI: -1.31, -0.61) and a moderate reduction in anxiety symptoms (SMD: -0.59; 95% CI: -0.98, -0.19).
Prebiotics did not show a significant effect on depression (SMD: -0.28; 95% CI: -0.61, 0.04).
High heterogeneity was observed across studies, and subgroup analyses indicated that study duration and probiotic formulations contributed to the variation in effect sizes.
3Periodontal pocket depth reductionMeta-AnalyseCited 16×n=1,290 · large study2024
Combining PMPR with probiotics as adjuvants to subgingival instrumentation may be more effective in improving PPD and CAL.
Mendonça CD et al. · BMC oral health (2024)
Network meta-analysis revealed significant mean differences in PPD for nine probiotic interventions, CAL for eighteen interventions, and BOP for eight interventions, with Lactobacillus demonstrating the most substantial effects.
Combining PMPR with probiotics as adjuvants to subgingival instrumentation may be more effective in improving PPD and CAL.
Lactobacillus emerged as the most comprehensive and effective among the studied probiotic.
4Pathogenic bacteria decolonizationMeta-AnalyseCited 40×n=2,871 · very large study2024
Protocol registration: PROSPERO (ID = CRD42021276045).
Rahman MN et al. · Gut microbes (2024)
Groß Nutzen
← SchlechterKein EffektBesser →
Likely real
This review aims to analyze available evidence from human-controlled trials to determine the effect size of probiotic interventions in decolonizing AMR pathogenic bacteria from the gut.
The persistence of pathogenic bacteria after treatment was 22%(probiotics) and 30.8%(placebo).
The pooled odds ratio was 0.59(95% CI:0.43-0.81), favoring probiotics with moderate certainty (p = 0.0001) and low heterogeneity (I2 = 49.2%, p = 0.0001).
5Intestinal barrier function improvementMeta-AnalyseCited 115×n=1,891 · large study2023
Meta-analysis of data from a total of 26 RCTs (n = 1891) indicated that probiotics significantly improved gut barrier function measured by levels of TER (MD, 5.27, 95% CI, 3.82 to 6.72, P < 0.00001), serum zonulin (SMD, -1.58, 95% CI, -2.49 to -0.66, P = 0.0007), endotoxin (SMD, -3.20, 95% CI, -5.41 to -0.98, P = 0.005), and LPS (SMD, -0.47, 95% CI, -0.85 to -0.09, P = 0.02).
Zheng Y et al. · Frontiers in Immunology (2023)
Significant improvement in intestinal barrier markers
Reduced zonulin and endotoxin levels
Enhanced gut barrier integrity across multiple trials
7FEV1 in asthma patientsMeta-AnalyseCited 10×n=1,101 · large study2023
Conclusion: the use of probiotics in patients with asthma can improve lung inflammation and asthma symptoms, reduce the number of asthma attacks, and have no effect on lung function.
Xie Q et al. · Nutricion hospitalaria (2023)
Kein klarer Effekt
← SchlechterKein EffektBesser →
Meta-analysis was performed using Revman 5.4 software and the combined effect was evaluated by odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) and 95 % confidence interval (CI).
There was no significant difference in forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1) (MD = 0.11, 95 % CI: -0.05, 0.26) and FEV1/FVC (%) (MD = 0.32, 95 % CI: -1.48, 2.12).
Results: a total of ten references were included, all of which were randomized controlled studies, and a total of 1,101 people were investigated.
9Inflammatory bowel disease outcomesMeta-AnalyseCited 34×n=2,500 · very large study2024
Probiotics, particularly multi-strain formulations, appear efficacious for the induction of clinical remission and the prevention of relapse in UC patients as well as for relapsing pouchitis.
Estevinho MM et al. · United European Gastroenterology Journal (2024)
11Oral mucositis incidenceMeta-AnalyseCited 41×n=708 · large study2022
We recommend the use of probiotics to prevent and treat oral mucositis during cancer therapy.
Liu YC et al. · International journal of molecular sciences (2022)
Spürbar Nutzen
← SchlechterKein EffektBesser →
Likely real
Three trials using Lactobacilli-based probiotics reported that the incidence of oral mucositis in the probiotic group was significantly low (risk ratio [RR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.77−0.93, p = 0.0004).
Seven trials reported a significantly low incidence of severe oral mucositis in the probiotic group (RR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.53−0.81, p < 0.0001).
The requirement of enteral nutrition was significantly low in the probiotic group (odds ratio = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13−0.92, p < 0.05).
12Acute infectious diarrhoea durationMeta-AnalyseCited 110×n=12,127 · very large study2020
Probiotics probably make little or no difference to the number of people who have diarrhoea lasting 48 hours or longer, and we are uncertain whether probiotics reduce the duration of diarrhoea.
Collinson S et al. · The Cochrane database of systematic reviews (2020)
Effect size was similar in the sensitivity analysis and marked heterogeneity persisted.
Effect size was similar and marked heterogeneity persisted in pre-specified subgroup analyses of the primary outcomes that included all studies.
In six trials (433 participants) of Lactobacillus reuteri, there was consistency amongst findings (I² = 0%), but risk of bias was present in all included studies.
13Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea preventionMeta-AnalyseCited 393×n=9,955 · very large study2017
Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis of 31 randomized controlled trials including 8672 patients, moderate certainty evidence suggests that probiotics are effective for preventing CDAD (NNTB = 42 patients, 95% CI 32 to 58).
Goldenberg JZ et al. · The Cochrane database of systematic reviews (2017)
Sehr groß Nutzen
← SchlechterKein EffektBesser →
A complete case analysis (i.e. participants who completed the study) among trials investigating CDAD (31 trials, 8672 participants) suggests that probiotics reduce the risk of CDAD by 60%.
The incidence of CDAD was 1.5% (70/4525) in the probiotic group compared to 4.0% (164/4147) in the placebo or no treatment control group (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.52; GRADE = moderate).
Twenty-two of 31 trials had missing CDAD data ranging from 2% to 45%.
15ASD behavioral symptoms improvementMeta-AnalyseCited 23×n=318 · medium study2024
Our study highlighted the significant improvement in ASD behavioral symptoms through probiotic supplementation.
Soleimanpour S et al. · Journal of psychiatric research (2024)
Spürbar Nutzen
← SchlechterKein EffektBesser →
Likely real
This was shown by a pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) of -0.38 (95% CI: 0.58 to -0.18, p < 0.01).
Moreover, both multi-strain probiotics and single-strain interventions showed an overall significant improvement with a SMD of -0.53 (95%CI: 0.85 to -0.22) and -0.28 (95%CI: 0.54 to -0.02), respectively.
Our study highlighted the significant improvement in ASD behavioral symptoms through probiotic supplementation.
17Anxiety symptomsMeta-Analysen=1,527 · large study2018
Probiotics did not significantly reduce symptoms of anxiety in humans (Hedges' g = -0.12, 95% CI -0.29-0.05, p = 0.151), and did not differentially affect clinical and healthy human samples.
Reis DJ et al. · PLoS One (2018)
Probiotics reduced anxiety-like behavior in animal models, mainly in diseased animals
No significant reduction in anxiety symptoms in human clinical trials
Only L. rhamnosus showed anxiolytic effects preclinically, in under-powered analyses