Prebiotics and Probiotics as Operationalized Within Siddha, Ayurveda, Unani, Traditional Chinese Medicine, Kampo, and Homeopathy-Adjacent Products: A PRISMA-P Protocol for Systematic Review, Evidence Mapping, and Meta-analysis in irritable bowel syndrome

Authors

  • A. P. Uma
  • Saravanasingh karan chand mohan singh
  • V. Indumathy
  • A. Jayakalaiarasi
  • Neethiraja M
  • Vibushanan G
  • Ramamurthy Murugan

Keywords:

probiotic, prebiotic, synbiotic, postbiotic, fermented foods, Siddha, Ayurveda, Unani, Traditional Chinese Medicine, Kampo, homeopathy, irritable bowel syndrome, systematic review, meta-analysis, PRISMA

Abstract

Background: "Probiotic" and "prebiotic" are modern technical categories with consensus definitions that require specific material features (e.g., live microorganisms in adequate amounts for probiotics; selective utilization by host microorganisms for prebiotics). Retroactively claiming that traditional medical systems "had probiotics" is conceptually invalid unless explicit mapping rules are stated and applied consistently. Fermented foods are further complicate comparability because microbial composition and dose are often unstandardized, making naive pooling with standardized probiotic products inappropriate.

Objective: To prospectively define a strict intervention taxonomy and eligibility framework for identifying and synthesizing clinical evidence on microbiome-directed interventions explicitly situated within Siddha, Ayurveda, Unani, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), Japanese traditional medicine (e.g., Kampo), and "homeopathy-adjacent" marketed products, and to conduct meta-analysis only where interventions and outcomes are comparable.

Methods: This protocol follows PRISMA-P guidance and is intended for PROSPERO registration. Final reporting will follow PRISMA 2020. We will first produce an evidence map across the targeted medical systems, then perform meta-analysis for coherent strata (primarily randomized controlled trials in adults with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) receiving standardized probiotic or prebiotic interventions). Risk of bias will be assessed using RoB 2 for randomized trials and ROBINS-I for non-randomized designs. Random-effects meta-analysis will be used as default, with pre-specified sensitivity analyses separating fermented foods from standardized probiotic products.

Expected outputs: (i) an evidence map and intervention taxonomy; (ii) a narrative synthesis across systems and intervention classes; (iii) meta-analyses where appropriate; and (iv) GRADE certainty ratings for key outcomes..

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71. PMID: 33782057.

2. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1. PMID: 25554246.

3. PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews. University of York, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Accessed 2026-01-19.

4. Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898. PMID: 31462531.

5. Sterne JAC, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919. PMID: 27733354.

6. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336(7650):924-926. doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD. PMID: 18436948.

7. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane. Accessed 2026-01-19.

8. Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, et al. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;11(8):506-514. doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66. PMID: 24912386.

9. Gibson GR, Hutkins R, Sanders ME, et al. ISAPP consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;14(8):491-502. doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2017.75. PMID: 28611480.

10. Swanson KS, Gibson GR, Hutkins R, et al. ISAPP consensus statement on the definition and scope of synbiotics. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;17(11):687-701. doi:10.1038/s41575-020-0344-2. PMID: 32826966.

11. Salminen S, Collado MC, Endo A, et al. ISAPP consensus statement on the definition and scope of postbiotics. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;18(9):649-667. doi:10.1038/s41575-021-00440-6. PMID: 33948025.

12. Marco ML, Sanders ME, Ganzle M, et al. ISAPP consensus statement on fermented foods. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;18(3):196-208. doi:10.1038/s41575-020-00390-5. PMID: 33398112.

13. Francis CY, Morris J, Whorwell PJ. The irritable bowel severity scoring system: a simple method of monitoring irritable bowel syndrome and its progress. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1997;11(2):395-402. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2036.1997.142318000.x. PMID: 9146781.

14. Lewis SJ, Heaton KW. Stool form scale as a useful guide to intestinal transit time. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1997;32(9):920-924. doi:10.3109/00365529709011203. PMID: 9299672.

15. Drossman DA. Functional gastrointestinal disorders: history, pathophysiology, clinical features and Rome IV. Gastroenterology. 2016. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2016.02.032. PMID: 27144617.

16. IntHout J, Ioannidis JPA, Borm GF. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis considerably outperforms DerSimonian-Laird. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:25. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-25. PMID: 24548571.

17. Jackson D, Law M, Rucker G, Schwarzer G. The Hartung-Knapp modification for random-effects meta-analysis: useful refinement with residual concerns? Stat Med. 2017;36(25):3923-3934. doi:10.1002/sim.7411. PMID: 28748567.

18. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-634. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629. PMID: 9310563.

19. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan - a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5:210. doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4. PMID: 27919275

Downloads

Published

2025-02-10

How to Cite

1.
Uma AP, chand mohan singh S karan, Indumathy V, Jayakalaiarasi A, M N, G V, et al. Prebiotics and Probiotics as Operationalized Within Siddha, Ayurveda, Unani, Traditional Chinese Medicine, Kampo, and Homeopathy-Adjacent Products: A PRISMA-P Protocol for Systematic Review, Evidence Mapping, and Meta-analysis in irritable bowel syndrome. J Neonatal Surg [Internet]. 2025 Feb. 10 [cited 2026 Mar. 17];14(2):304-8. Available from: https://jneonatalsurg.com/index.php/jns/article/view/9919

Issue

Vol. 14 No. 2 (2025): Journal of Neonatal Surgery

Section

Original Article

License

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

You are free to:

  • Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

Terms:

  • Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
  • No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.