Effects of <i>Lactobacillus plantarum</i> P9 Probiotics on Defecation and Quality of Life of Individuals with Chronic Constipation: Protocol for a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

Liu, Wenjun; Lu, Nong-Hua; Zhou, Xu; Li, Yingmeng; Xie, Yong; Zheng, Longjin; Zhu, Weifeng; Xiao, Qiuping; Yang, Ni; Zuo, Kexuan; Wu, Qingni; Xu, Tielong; Zhang, Heping

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4144321

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

On this page

Abstract Background Methods Discussion Data Availability Ethical Approval Consent Disclosure Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 4144321 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4144321

Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum P9 Probiotics on Defecation and Quality of Life of Individuals with Chronic Constipation: Protocol for a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

Wenjun Liu,¹Nong-Hua Lu,²Xu Zhou,³Yingmeng Li,⁴Yong Xie,³Longjin Zheng,⁴Weifeng Zhu,³Qiuping Xiao,⁴Ni Yang,⁴Kexuan Zuo,⁴Qingni Wu,³and Tielong Xu³ et al.

Academic Editor: Mohammad Hashem Hashempur

Received03 Nov 2021

Revised25 Mar 2022

Accepted23 Apr 2022

Published13 Jun 2022

Abstract

Background. Although probiotics have been shown to improve constipation-related symptoms, a clear consensus on the use of probiotics as a constipation-relieving agent has not been reached, which is attributed to the limited available evidence and inconsistent protocols used in existing studies. Method. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial is designed to study the efficiency and possible mechanism of action of probiotics for chronic constipation, in which 200 eligible volunteers with chronic constipation will be randomly assigned to a probiotic group (oral Lactobacillus plantarum P9 probiotic powder, 100 billion colony-forming units (CFUs)/day) or a placebo group. Volunteers, treatment distributors, data collectors, and data analysts will be blinded. The primary outcome is the weekly mean frequency of complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs), and secondary outcomes include weekly mean frequency of CSBMs ≥3, weekly mean frequency of spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs), weekly mean stool appearance score, weekly mean difficulty of passing stool score, weekly percentage of volunteers who use auxiliary measures to assist with defecation (WPUAMA), quality-of-life (QOL) score, emotional status score, gut microbiome, and faecal metabolome. Each outcome measure will be assessed at the time points of preadministration (day 0), administration (day 14 and/or 28), and postadministration (day 42) to identify inter- and intragroup differences. Adverse events will be recorded to evaluate the safety of L. plantarum P9. Discussion. The protocol will provide methodological guidance for other similar studies, avoiding methodological bias and ultimately facilitating the formulation of consensus on the use of probiotics as a constipation-relieving agent. In addition, the results are more comprehensive than those of existing studies and may objectively and scientifically reflect the effectiveness of L. plantarum P9 on constipation. If the expected study findings are obtained, L. plantarum P9, taken as a probiotic, may become a complementary choice for chronically constipated patients. This trial is registered with Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) (no. ChiCTR2000038396) registered on November 22, 2020, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=54024.

1. Background

Constipation is a common diagnosis made by gastroenterologists based on the assessment of infrequent bowel movements (<3 per week) and difficult stool passage, while patients may report multiple symptoms, including a sense of incomplete defecation, abdominal pain, bloating, excessive straining accompanied by a sensation of anorectal blockage during stool passage, and requiring manual assistance to release the stool. Acute (or nonchronic) constipation either results in blockage of the intestinal tract that requires surgery [1] or tends to be ignored by patients. Academically, constipation always refers to chronic constipation, which is categorized into primary constipation and secondary constipation (attributed to other diseases or factors). Based on the Rome IV criteria [2], the classifications of primary constipation are functional constipation, irritable bowel syndrome with constipation, and defecatory disorders. From the aspect of the transiting rate of stool movement through colonic and contraction of muscle tissue during defecation, primary constipation is also divided into slow transit constipation, normal transit constipation, and defecatory disorders [3].

The global prevalence of constipation ranges from 10% to 30% [4–7]. The variance in prevalence may be attributed to the individuals assessed in different surveys, which may be self-reported or use different Rome criteria (I, II, III or IV) to identify participants [5, 8–10], thus lacking a concise definition of constipation. Overall, chronic constipation is more frequent in the population with the following characteristics: elderly, female, nonwhite race, medication intake, low income and education level, physical inactivity, and depression [8, 11–23]. Because patients are constantly suffering from physical symptoms and psychological distress, chronic constipation potentially disturbs people’s lives, studies, and work [24, 25] due to dyspareunia, sexual dysfunction, urine retention [26], reduced mental health and social function [24, 27], school absenteeism, a high number of lost work days, and the cost of medical care [28].

Only one-fifth of patients with constipation seek medical advice [19], and laxatives are the most frequently prescribed agents [29, 30]. Laxatives, physical exercise, fibre intake, and dietary management are the traditional treatments. However, approximately 50% of constipated individuals are dissatisfied with their current treatments [31, 32]. As many as 74% of nursing home residents have been reported to use laxatives daily [33–35], of which only 28%–57% are estimated to be satisfied with the treatment according to the results of two Internet-based surveys [36, 37]. Undesirable side effects are a main reason for suboptimal satisfaction. New treatments must be developed for unsatisfied patients, and daily intake of probiotics holds great promise since various probiotics have shown benefits for constipation treatment [38–43].

However, although many studies have reported that probiotics are potentially beneficial for constipated individuals [39–43], a clear consensus on the use of probiotics as a constipation-relieving agent has not been reached [44]. This lack of consensus is mainly attributed to the shortage of study methodology in terms of incorrect statistical analysis, inconsistent definitions of constipation and outcomes of the intervention, and an unvalidated assessment technique [44–46]. Therefore, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to reach a more confident consensus [47]. Moreover, RCTs examining the effectiveness of probiotics as a constipation-relieving agent may elucidate a clear mechanism of action for a more confident conclusion. Generally, a balanced intestinal flora provides health benefits to human hosts; conversely, an imbalanced flora may promote the development of constipation [48]. Consistently, probiotics may positively modify the intestinal flora [49, 50] and even provide potentially beneficial microorganisms to the host.

Thus, we designed this protocol to study the effectiveness of L. plantarum P9 on chronic constipation and to guide other studies assessing the effectiveness of probiotics. The correlation between the clinical improvement of symptoms and changes in intestinal flora was also analysed.

2. Methods and Design

2.1. Design

This study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in Nanchang, China, and volunteers may receive the intervention (oral probiotics or placebo) in their own homes. The protocol was prospectively registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) (NO. ChiCTR2000038396) (Appendix 1) and approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University (Approval Number: IIT [2020], Clinical Ethics Review NO. 004) (Appendix 2). This manuscript is prepared according to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) [51]. The flowchart of the trial process is provided in Figure 1.

2.2. Inclusion Criteria

Eligible patients should fully meet the Rome IV criteria [2]:(1)Onset of the following symptoms for at least 6 months before enrolment and symptoms within the past 3 months that meet the following criteria [2, 52]:(1)Two or more of the following symptoms: (a.) difficulty passing stool, at least 25% of defecations; (b.) lumpy or hard stool, at least 25% of defecations (Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS) types 1 or 2 (Appendix 3) [53]); (c.) incomplete defecation in at least 25% of defecations; (d.) sense of anorectal obstruction in at least 25% of defecations; (e.) need for manual assistance for defecation (such as using fingers to assist with defecation or pelvic floor support) in at least 25% of defecations; and (f.) fewer than 3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) per week.(2)Loose stool rarely occurs without the use of laxatives.(3)Insufficient stools are rarely present without the use of laxatives.(2)Willing to sign the informed consent form (Appendix 4)(3)The volunteers involved in this study will be patients with chronic constipation aged 18–65 years. For patients aged from 18 (exclusive) to 50 (inclusive) years, the result of stool tests (including occult blood) conducted during the screening period must be normal or abnormal but determined to be clinically irrelevant by the investigators. For patients aged 50 (exclusive) to 65 (inclusive) years, the result of a colonoscopy performed at a tertiary or higher-level hospital within the past 6 months must be normal or abnormal but determined clinically irrelevant by the investigators.

2.3. Exclusion Criteria

Volunteers with any of the following conditions will be excluded:(1)Personal or family history of colon cancer, celiac disease, or inflammatory bowel disease(2)Intestinal organic diseases confirmed on a previous colonoscopy(3)Plans to become pregnant or father a child in the next 3 months, or pregnant, or breastfeeding(4)Allergies to samples or ingredients(5)Use of antibiotics or probiotics within the past two weeks(6)Use of antianxiety, antidepressant, or other psychotropic drugs within the past month(7)Need for long-term use of medications for constipation(8)History of severe diseases, such as myocardial infarction, cerebral infarction, and malignant tumour, judged by the investigators as disqualifying conditions(9)Major mental illnesses, inability to control one’s actions, or inability to cooperate(10)Illiteracy, inability to understand the informed consent form, or inability to independently sign the informed consent form

2.4. Volunteer Recruitment

The investigators will recruit volunteers from the public through in-person communication, posters, and WeChat promotions. Volunteers can scan a WeChat two-dimensional (QR) code to register for enrolment, submit their personal information, and answer questions related to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Volunteers will undergo a procedure that includes three rounds of screening. First, the investigators will collect and collate the volunteers’ registration information and, according to the information provided by registrants, invite potentially eligible candidates to participate in a central consultation with clinical specialists for further screening and selection of eligible volunteers. Second, during the central consultation, trained study implementers will introduce the trial to volunteers in the form of a video and information sheets describing the main aspects of the trial and discuss the information provided in the video and information sheets. Then, volunteers will meet with the clinical specialist to confirm their registration information, especially regarding inclusion and exclusion criteria. Third, volunteers will sign an informed consent form in the presence of a member of the data management team (DMT). Then, volunteers will undergo a 14-day screening period when they will not be allowed to take any medicines or health products to improve their constipation symptoms. Each volunteer will be asked to collect one stool sample and complete an online diary entry daily (Figure 2). At the end of the screening period, the diary and stool sample results will be reviewed and used to select eligible volunteers. Subsequent steps will include the formal intervention and follow-up visits (Figure 1).

2.5. Randomization and Blinding

Eligible volunteers will be assigned a unique serial number (e.g., 001, 002, 003, 004, 005……). The unique number will be used as the volunteers’ ID throughout the study period to guarantee anonymity and confidentiality. For each of these unique numbers, a random sequence will be generated by the computer software R 4.1.0 and used to randomly assign the unique number (participant) to the probiotic group or the placebo group. During the study, the volunteer’s treatment distributors, data collectors, and data analysts will be blinded to the randomization sequence. The randomization sequence will be maintained by an independent project administrator and will only be unblinded in the case of major safety issues or when performing the interim and final data analyses. Moreover, an independent project administrator will label the probiotics or placebo packages with unique numbers corresponding to random sequences in advance to achieve allocation concealment. During the period of administration, the distributor will distribute the treatment packages according to the unique number that corresponds to each participant.

2.6. Study Interventions

The L. plantarum P9 and placebo powders will be manufactured in parallel and independently by Research and Development Department, Jiangzhong Pharmaceutical Company Limited (Nanchang, China). Briefly, the preparation procedure consists of three steps: weighing, mixing, and packaging. L. plantarum P9 powder is composed of 20% maltodextrin, 20% orange powder, 20% maltitol, and 40% L. plantarum P9, while placebo powder consists of 60% maltodextrin, 20% orange powder, and 20% maltitol. Raw materials for L. plantarum P9 and placebo powders are mixed using a Hopper mixer (hit-400) and sealed into 2 g packages. The temperature is controlled at 25 ± 2°C, and the relative humidity is less than 65% during the three steps. In the study, when the product of L. plantarum P9 powder is manufactured, a randomized sample is sent to Jinhua Yinhe Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (https://yinhewdy168.foodmate.net/) for quality inspection. The activity of probiotics is greater than 67 billion colony-forming units (CFUs)/g.

The study will include three phases (Table 1), including a screening period (an observation period prior to treatment administration), an observation period during administration, and an observation period after administration. The interventions in each phase will be administered as follows:(1)Period of screening (preadministration observation period) (days 14 to 0): in this phase, volunteers will not receive the intended interventions, i.e., probiotics and placebo. Eligibility screening will be performed as described during volunteer recruitment (Table 1).(2)Observation period during administration (days 0 to 28): (1) Probiotics group: volunteers will take 1 package of L. plantarum P9 powder directly or with warm water (below 40°C) on a full stomach at a dose of 100 billion CFUs per day; if antibiotics must be taken, probiotics should be taken 2 hours later. (2) Placebo group: volunteers will take the placebo in the same manner as the probiotics group. The placebo contains no probiotics but has the same appearance, packaging, and taste as the L. plantarum P9 powder. All remaining probiotics or placebo (unused) and empty (used) packages will be collected at the end of this period to monitor compliance. During the study, both probiotics and placebo will be stored in a cool, dry place away from direct sunlight.(3)Postadministration observation period (days 29 to 42): no probiotics or placebo will be taken.

2.7. Prohibited Confounding Interventions

The following treatments are prohibited during the study: (1) probiotics, prebiotics, and foods containing probiotics (such as yoghurt) other than the Lactobacillus plantarum used in this study; (2) antianxiety, antidepressants, and other psychotropic drugs; and (3) other substances designed to improve intestinal symptoms.

In addition, antibiotics will be monitored during the study, and normal dietary habits will be recommended. All concomitantly used substances/drugs related to defecation should be recorded daily in the online defecation diary (Figure 2), and explanations are needed.

2.8. Primary Outcome

A defecation diary developed with reference to the literature [32, 53–56] will be completed daily online by the participants (Figure 2). Based on the diary, the changes in primary and some of the secondary outcomes from day 0 (week 0) to day 42 (week 6) will be evaluated.(1)The primary outcome measure is the weekly mean frequency of complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs) [32, 54, 55].

A CSBM is defined as the ability to achieve a complete bowel movement without the use of any drugs or other auxiliary measures during the previous 24 hours. Based on the diary (Figure 2), the weekly mean frequency of CSBMs from day 0 (week 0) to day 14 (week 2), day 28 (week 4), and day 42 (week 6) will be evaluated [32, 54, 55] (Table 1).

2.9. Secondary Outcomes

(1)Based on the diary (Figure 2), the changes in the percentage of volunteers with a weekly mean frequency of CSBMs ≥3 [32, 54, 55], changes in the weekly mean frequency of spontaneous bowl movements (SBMs) [32, 54–56], weekly mean stool appearance score [53], weekly mean difficulty of passing stool score, and weekly percentage of volunteers who use auxiliary measures to assist with defecation (WPUAMA) will be evaluated each week from day 0 (week 0) to day 14 (week 2), day 28 (week 4), and day 42 (week 6). An SBM is defined as a bowel movement achieved without the use of any drugs or other auxiliary measures during the previous 24 hours [32, 54, 55] (Table 1).(2)The Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality-of-Life (PAC-QOL) questionnaire (Appendix 5 [56, 57]) will be used to evaluate the QOL score on days 0, 14, 28, and 42.(3)The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Questionnaire (DASS-21) [58, 59] (Appendix 6) will be completed online on days 0 (baseline), 14, 28, and 42 and used to assess the participants’ emotional status (depression, anxiety, and stress) within the past week (Table 1).(4)For the indicator of the gut microbiome, DNA will be extracted from the stool samples with the QIAamp Fast DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions, and the quality of DNA will be examined using agarose gel electrophoresis and a NanoDrop spectrophotometer. Shotgun metagenomic sequencing will be performed on all samples using an Illumina HiSeq 2500 instrument. Libraries will be constructed from DNA fragments with a length of ∼300 bp; paired-end reads will be generated by sequencing 150 bp in the forward and reverse directions. Meanwhile, the metagenomic analysis will include several parts: the analysis of alpha diversity and beta diversity in each group to understand whether the differences in the microbiota compositions of groups are significant and a comparison of the taxonomic characteristics of the study group and the control group at the level of phylum, genus, and species to identify specific genes related to the individual differences of constipation. Metagenomic biological pathway analysis will be used to evaluate the effect of probiotics on the function of gut metagenomics in patients with constipation and to explore the metagenomic biological pathways contributing to the mechanism underlying the effect of probiotics on the treatment of constipation.(5)For the indicator of the faecal metabolome, stool samples will be extracted using the protein precipitation method, and the supernatant will be transferred to sample vials for LC-MS/MS analysis. The original data will be subjected to peak alignment, retention time correction, and peak area extraction using the XCMS-Plus program. The structure of metabolites will be identified by accurate mass matching (<5 ppm) and two-level spectrum matching, and the METLIN database will be retrieved. We will then delete data with missing values > 50% in the group, normalize the data, and conduct multidimensional statistical analysis, including unsupervised principal component analysis (PCA), supervised partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), and potential differentially abundant metabolite analysis. The metabolomic analysis might further identify the potential differentially abundant metabolites of probiotics in the treatment of constipation, and a correlation analysis between the gut microbiota and metabolites will be performed.

2.10. Safety Evaluation

All related clinical trials have reported that probiotics are safe and do not induce significant adverse events compared with the placebo group. However, four types of adverse reactions related to probiotics should be considered, including symptoms that may be attributed to systemic infections, deleterious metabolic activities, excessive immune stimulation, and gastrointestinal side effects [60], which will be collected as possible adverse events during the study. Severe adverse events are those adverse events leading to study withdrawal, e.g., hospitalization, disability, mortal danger, or death. All adverse events, including symptoms, time of onset, duration, causal relationship to interventions, and measures taken, will be accurately recorded during the study. Any serious adverse events will be recorded along with the corresponding criteria and emergency measures and will be promptly reported to the Medical Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University within 24 hours; a separate study report will be prepared. Based on the adverse events observed during the study, the safety of the probiotics will be evaluated as excellent (safe, without any adverse events), good (relatively safe with moderate adverse events that resolve on their own without any specific treatment and do not result in study withdrawal), conditional (adverse events that resolve after certain measures are taken and allow continued participation in the study), or unsafe (adverse events that result in study withdrawal) [61].

2.11. Additional Assessment

Demographic profiles, special situations related to defecation during the study, including changes in dietary habits (e.g., eating spicy or oily foods or drinking), taking antibiotics, and any other reported situation will be recorded and assessed as needed.

2.12. Sample Size

This study is a clinical trial during which volunteers will consume a sample medication or placebo for 28 days and will be followed up for 42 days. The primary outcome measure is the weekly frequency of CSBMs. The expected weekly frequencies of CSBMs on day 28 are 1.1 in the control group and 4.1 in the probiotic group, with a between-group difference of 3. Given a standard deviation S = 6, α = 0.05, and β = 0.20, the sample size should be at least 63 volunteers per group, as calculated with the formula for statistically significant effectiveness. After considering the drop-out rate (20% or lower), the sample size should be 76 or more participants per group. The final sample size will be 100 participants per group for a total of 200 volunteers.

2.13. Compliance Monitoring and Withdrawal

The probiotics and placebo will be supplied as packages distributed in boxes. At the start of the administration period, the appropriate number of probiotic and placebo packages will be distributed to the participants. All used (empty) and unused packaging will be kept by volunteers. At the end of the administration period, these packages will be collected to verify the number of remaining packages and calculate the dosing rate. A dosing rate ≥80% indicates good compliance. A WeChat group will be established for the participants to improve compliance. The study personnel will post messages in the WeChat group to remind participants to take the samples as scheduled and complete the questionnaire. In addition, each participant will receive a reward of 300 RMB once they complete the follow-up.

Volunteers will be withdrawn from the trial for the following reasons: (1) continuous adverse reactions involving systemic infections that cannot be resolved after certain measures are taken, deleterious metabolic activities, excessive immune stimulation, gene transfer, and gastrointestinal side effects, which may be attributed to probiotics [60]; and (2) patients can actively withdraw from the trial at any time for any reason, and subsequent treatment will not be affected.

2.14. Data Collection and Collation

The defecation diary (Figure 2) completed by the volunteers will be collected online daily, and the DASS-21 (Appendix 6) will be collected online as scheduled (see Table 1). One stool sample for the gut microbiome analysis and one for the metabolomics test will be collected from each volunteer on days 0 (preadministration period), 28 (administration period), and 42 (postadministration period); these samples will be stored separately and sent for tests at a temperature of −80°C in a special stool storage kit from Guangdong Longsee Company (https://www.longseemed.com).

An independent data management team (DMT) will be established to maintain and monitor study quality and safety. The data of individual characteristics, defecation diary entries (Figure 2), and DASS-21 data (Appendix 6) completed online by volunteers will be downloaded as Excel spreadsheets for further analysis. The gut microbiome and metabolomic data from stool samples will be examined by the Key Laboratory of Dairy Biotechnology and Engineering, Ministry of Education. All data will be submitted to the DMT for management and monitoring. The DMT will promptly analyse the data and contact collectors to resolve any uncertainty that occurs. All records that contain names or other personal information that could identify a participant, such as ID number or consent forms, will be stored separately from the study records. The database will be password protected by the DMT. The team will also have the authority to conduct an interim analysis or terminate the study’s next step if the following situations occur: (1) if the probiotic does not affect the gut microbiome, then the study team will not conduct tests on the faecal metabolomes; and (2) if any severe adverse events related to the probiotics occur, the DMT will suggest terminating the study.

2.15. Statistical Analysis

The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis will be conducted between the two groups. Then, the following four data sets will be used for the per-protocol (PP) analysis: (1) the data from all participants who completed the follow-up and (2) a subgroup analysis regarding levels of compliance (≥80%, 60–80%, and <60%) to validate the robustness of the results. The hypothesis will be tested using the methods described below during the ITT and PP analyses.

First, the Wilcoxon signed-rank sum test will be used for the outcome measures, including the weekly mean frequency of CSBMs, weekly mean stool appearance score, weekly mean difficulty of passing stool score, weekly mean frequency of SBMs, QOL score, and emotional status score, at each observation point to analyse the intergroup differences in each outcome measure. The chi-square (χ²) test will be used for the outcome measures, namely, the percentage of volunteers with a weekly mean frequency of CSBMs ≥3 and WPUAMA, at each observation point. In the analyses, the value indicating statistical significance will be set to 0.05.

Then, the Kruskal–Wallis rank sum test will be used for multiple comparisons of outcome measures, including the weekly mean frequency of CSBMs, weekly mean stool appearance score, weekly mean difficulty of passing stool score, weekly mean frequency of SBMs, QOL score, and emotional status score, and the χ² test will be used for multiple comparisons of outcome measures, including percentage of volunteers with a weekly mean frequency of CSBMs ≥3 and WPUAMA, at each observation point to identify the intragroup changing trends in consecutive phases, namely, pre-, during, and postprobiotic administration. In the analyses, the value indicating statistical significance will be adjusted to 0.05/[k (k −1)/2], where k is the number of sample groups included in the comparison.

In addition, the statistical analyses of metagenomic and metabolomic data will be performed using R software (v.4.0.2) and Adobe Illustrator. PCA and PLS-DA will be performed and visualized using the R packages vegan, ggplot, and ggpubr, and the adonis value will be generated based on 999 permutations. The t-test, Wilcoxon test, and Kruskal–Wallis test will be used to evaluate differences in variables between and within groups; values will be corrected for multiple testing using the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure. Meanwhile, Pearson’s and Spearman’s correlation coefficients will be calculated to analyse the correlations between different indicators in clinical, metagenomic, and metabolomic data.

3. Discussion

Interest in using probiotics as a constipation-relieving agent is increasing, as approximately half of patients have been disappointed with their current treatments. Probiotics hold great promise as a complementary treatment. However, a clear consensus on its recommendation for a patient with constipation is still unavailable because the existing evidence is limited and the methodology used by the existing studies lacks consistency, precluding a comparison of the results. In this context, we developed the protocol for this study.

The key parameters of the methodology used in the previous RCTs and the present RCT are shown and compared in Table 2. The RCTs cited in Table 2 were obtained from recently published systematic reviews or meta-analyses [39–42, 62, 63] that aim to study the effect of probiotics on constipation. Seventy-six RCTs were initially obtained from these systematic reviews or meta-analyses, while 34 RCTs remained after removing 35 duplicate papers and 7 papers that only focused on the effects of probiotics on intestinal flora in healthy adults for the extraction and comparison of key parameters of the methodology (Table 2). As shown in Table 2, the parameters of the methodology are quite inconsistent. For example, the sample size varies substantially from 8 [64] to 453 [65], and the daily dosage ranges from 10⁸ [66] to 10¹⁰ [67] CFUs; importantly, the diagnostic criteria for constipation, study stage and duration, and outcomes are also obviously different. Under these circumstances, a high-quality RCT protocol is needed to promote the consistency of methodology in future research. Based on the optimized parameters used by the 34 RCTs (Table 2) and our understanding of methodology, we designed the present protocol, of which the parameters are listed in the last row in Table 2.

We optimize the methodology from the following aspects: ① The general principle for a high-quality RCT is strictly obeyed through the participation of third-party independent companies or the DMT, including randomization, parallel control, blinding, allocation concealment, combination of ITT and PP analyses, consideration of withdrawals or dropouts, replication (enough observed study subjects), and other factors. ② The sample size (100 for each group) is obtained based on the expected difference in weekly frequency of CSBMs between the treatment group and control group, which is sufficient to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the results. The sample sizes in 33 of the 35 previous RCTs are dozens or even several participants, which is probably not sufficient to obtain an accurate result. ③ The latest Rome criteria (Rome IV for the present RCT) are suggested for the diagnosis of chronic constipation to avoid any other self-definition by researchers. ④ Multidimensional outcomes have been observed in the present RCT, including improvements in clinical symptoms, QOL score, emotional status score, and modifications in the gut microbiome and faecal metabolome, to produce a chain of evidence from causal improvements in metagenomic and metabolomic data to clinical symptoms and then to the emotional state and QOL. The outcomes are measured using accepted methods, e.g., BSFS [53], PAC-QOL [57], DASS-21 [58], next-generation sequencing, and LC–MS/MS analysis. Thus, the effects of probiotics on chronic constipation in the present study are more reliable and explainable. ⑤ Other key parameters, such as the study stage and duration, are also suggested.

In addition, the protocol is conducted to prove its feasibility and scientificity by studying the effects of L. plantarum P9 on chronic constipation. The study is articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stating that L. plantarum P9 improves the clinical symptoms and patient QOL by modifying the intestinal flora. Additionally, the safety of L. plantarum P9 will be assessed.

Thus, we believe the study will be a high-quality RCT. The results will be more comprehensive than those of existing studies and will objectively and scientifically reflect the effectiveness of L. plantarum P9 on constipation. In addition, the protocol will provide methodological guidance for similar studies, avoiding methodological bias and ultimately facilitating the formulation of a consensus on the use of probiotics as a constipation-relieving agent.

3.1. Trial Status

This study started recruiting patients on October 1, 2020. To date, 130 patients have been enrolled. Enrolment is expected to be completed by May 31, 2022, and all follow-up visits are expected to be completed by July 31, 2022. The protocol is version 2.0, and the date of the edition is 10 September 2020.

Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this trial as no database is generated or analysed for the current study. And when the study is completed, the study results will be released to the public, volunteers, and the general medical community via publishing a journal article, with all related data being available.

Ethical Approval

This study was approved on November 14, 2020, by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University (no. IIT [2020] Clinical Ethics Review NO. 002).

All participants will sign informed consent forms for the initial assessment and participation in this study.

Disclosure

The funders played no role in the design of the study, data collection and analysis, or preparation of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Authors’ Contributions

WJL, N-HL, and HPZ conceived and designed this study and supervised the research team. TLX, YML, YX, and LJZ are the main individuals responsible for performing the study, and WFZ, QPX, NY, KXZ, and QNW helped with implementation. TLX drafted the manuscript and participated in the design of the study. YML and XZ assisted in designing the study and drafting the manuscript. All the authors have read and agreed to the final version of the manuscript. Wenjun Liu and Nong-Hua Lu contributed equally to the study.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge all participants and companies who contributed to the trial. During the study, the treatment packages will be prepared by an independent company (Jiangxi Sisi Fangfang Bates Advertising, Nanchang, China) and blinded by a clinical trial supply company (LinkDoc Company Limited, Beijing, China). The trial was supported with funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31720103911) (Appendix 7) to Heping Zhang. L. plantarum P9 probiotics and placebo will be manufactured by Jiangzhong Pharmaceutical Company Limited (Nanchang, China). Jiangzhong Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. is also a sponsor, and the contact is Jianhua Wan, [email protected].

Supplementary Materials

Appendix 1: trial registration data set. Appendix 2: copy of the Ethical Approval Document. Appendix 3: Bristol Stool Form Scale. Appendix 4: informed consent materials. Appendix 5: Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality-of-Life (PAC-QOL) questionnaire. Appendix 6: Depression, Anxiety and Stress Questionnaire. Appendix 7: National Natural Science Foundation of China. (Supplementary Materials)

References

M. Benninga, D. C. Candy, A. G. Catto-Smith et al., “The paris consensus on childhood constipation terminology (PACCT) group,” Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 273–275, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Mearin, B. E. Lacy, L. Chang et al., “Bowel disorders,” Gastroenterology, vol. 150, no. 6, pp. 1393–1407, 2016.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Mari, M. Mahamid, H. Amara, F. A. Baker, and A. Yaccob, “Chronic constipation in the elderly patient: updates in evaluation and management,” Korean Journal of Family Medicine, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 139–145, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
American Gastroenterological Association, A. E. Bharucha, S. D. Dorn, A. Lembo, and A. Pressman, “American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on constipation,” Gastroenterology, vol. 144, no. 1, pp. 211–217, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Pare, S. Ferrazzi, W. G. Thompson, E. J. Irvine, and L. Rance, “An epidemiological survey of constipation in Canada: definitions, rates, demographics, and predictors of health care seeking,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 96, no. 11, pp. 3130–3137, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. F. Stewart, J. N. Liberman, R. S. Sandler et al., “Epidemiology of constipation (EPOC) study in the United States: relation of clinical subtypes to sociodemographic features,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 94, no. 12, pp. 3530–3540, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. M. Mugie, M. A. Benninga, and C. Di Lorenzo, “Epidemiology of constipation in children and adults: a systematic review,” Best Practice and Research Clinical Gastroenterology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 3–18, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Wald, C. Scarpignato, S. Mueller-Lissner et al., “A multinational survey of prevalence and patterns of laxative use among adults with self-defined constipation,” Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 28, pp. 917–930, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Wald, S. Mueller-Lissner, M. A. Kamm et al., “Survey of laxative use by adults with self-defined constipation in South America and Asia: a comparison of six countries,” Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 31, pp. 274–284, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. L. Werth, M. J. Fisher, K. A. Williams, and L. G. Pont, “Chronic constipation in the community: a national survey of Australian adults,” The Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 259–264, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. D. Higgins and J. F. Johanson, “Epidemiology of constipation in North America: a systematic review,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 750–759, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. F. Johanson, A. Sonnenberg, and T. R. Koch, “Clinical epidemiology of chronic constipation,” Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 525–536, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. J. Talley, K. C. Fleming, J. M. Evans et al., “Constipation in an elderly community: a study of prevalence and potential risk factors,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 91, pp. 19–25, 1996.
View at: Google Scholar
R. S. Sandler, M. C. Jordan, and B. J. Shelton, “Demographic and dietary determinants of constipation in the US population,” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 185–189, 1990.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. E. Everhart, V. L. W. Go, R. S. Johannes, S. C. Fitzsimmons, H. P. Roth, and L. R. White, “A longitudinal survey of self-reported bowel habits in the United States,” Digestive Diseases and Sciences, vol. 34, no. 8, pp. 1153–1162, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. S. Choung, G. R. Locke IIIrd., C. D. Schleck, A. R. Zinsmeister, and N. J. Talley, “Cumulative incidence of chronic constipation: a population-based study 1988–2003,” Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 26, pp. 1521–1528, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Sonnenberg and T. R. Koch, “Epidemiology of constipation in the United States,” Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, vol. 32, pp. 1–8, 1989.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Connell, C. Hilton, G. Irvine, J. E. Lennard-Jones, and J. J. Misiewicz, “Variation of bowel habit in two population samples,” BMJ, vol. 2, no. 5470, pp. 1095–1099, 1965.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. A. Drossman, Z. Li, E. Andruzzi et al., “U.S. householder survey of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Prevalence, sociodemography, and health impact,” Digestive Diseases and Sciences, vol. 38, no. 9, pp. 1569–1580, 1993.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. S. Merkel, J. Locher, K. Burgio, A. Towers, and A. Wald, “Physiologic and psychologic characteristics of an elderly population with chronic constipation,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 88, pp. 1854–1859, 1993.
View at: Google Scholar
A. L. Towers, K. L. Burgio, J. L. Locher, I. S. Merkel, M. Safaeian, and A. Wald, “Constipation in the elderly: influence of dietary, psychological, and physiological factors,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 701–706, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. J. Talley, M. Jones, G. Nuyts, and D. Dubois, “Risk factors for chronic constipation based on a general practice sample,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 98, no. 5, pp. 1107–1111, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Dukas, W. C. Willett, and E. L. Giovannucci, “Association between physical activity, fiber intake, and other lifestyle variables and constipation in a study of women,” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 98, no. 8, pp. 1790–1796, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. E. Bharucha, J. H. Pemberton, and G. R. Locke IIIrd., “American Gastroenterological Association technical review on constipation,” Gastroenterology, vol. 144, no. 1, pp. 218–238, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Gliav and G. Lindberg, “Quality of life in patients with different types of functional constipation,” Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 32, no. 11, pp. 1083–1089, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Wlodarczyk, A. Wasniewska, J. Fichna, A. Dziki, L. Dziki, and M. Wlodarczyk, “Current overview on clinical management of chronic constipation,” Journal of Clinical Medicine, vol. 10, no. 8, p. 1738, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. J. Yost, M. N. Haan, R. A. Levine, and E. B. Gold, “Comparing SF-36 scores across three groups of women with different health profiles,” Quality of Life Research, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 1251–1261, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Dennison, M. Prasad, A. Lloyd, S. K. Bhattacharyya, R. Dhawan, and K. Coyne, “The health-related quality of life and economic burden of constipation,” PharmacoEconomics, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 461–476, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. C. E. Shafe, S. Lee, J. S. O. Dalrymple, and P. J. Whorwell, “The LUCK study: laxative usage in patients with GP-diagnosed constipation in the UK, within the general population and in pregnancy. An epidemiological study using the general practice research database (GPRD),” Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 343–363, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. B. Menees, A. Guentner, S. W. Chey, R. Saad, and W. D. Chey, “How do US gastroenterologists use over-the-counter and prescription medications in patients with gastroesophageal reflux and chronic constipation?” American Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 110, no. 11, pp. 1516–1525, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. F. Johanson and J. Kralstein, “Chronic constipation: a survey of the patient perspective,” Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 599–608, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. D. Nelson, M. Camilleri, S. Chirapongsathorn et al., “Comparison of efficacy of pharmacological treatments for chronic idiopathic constipation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis,” Gut, vol. 66, no. 9, pp. 1611–1622, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Harari, J. H. Gurwitz, J. Avorn, I. Choodnovskiy, and K. L. Minaker, “Constipation: assessment and management in an institutionalized elderly population,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 947–952, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. J. Talley, “Definitions, epidemiology, and impact of chronic constipation,” Reviews in Gastroenterological Disorders, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 3–10, 2004.
View at: Google Scholar
W. R. Primrose, A. E. Capewell, G. K. Simpson, and R. G. Smith, “Prescribing patterns observed in registered nursing homes and long-stay geriatric wards,” Age and Ageing, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 25–28, 1987.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Emmanuel, E. M. Quigley, M. Simren et al., “Factors affecting satisfaction with treatment in European women with chronic constipation: an internet survey,” United European Gastroenterology Journal, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 375–384, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Muller-Lissner, J. Tack, Y. Feng, F. Schenck, and R. Specht Gryp, “Levels of satisfaction with current chronic constipation treatment options in Europe - an internet survey,” Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 137–145, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. I. Martinez-Martinez, R. Calabuig-Tolsa, and O. Cauli, “The effect of probiotics as a treatment for constipation in elderly people: a systematic review,” Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, vol. 71, pp. 142–149, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Zhang, J. Jiang, F. Tian et al., “Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of the effects of probiotics on functional constipation in adults,” Clinical Nutrition, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 2960–2969, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Dimidi, S. Christodoulides, K. C. Fragkos, S. M. Scott, and K. Whelan, “The effect of probiotics on functional constipation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 100, no. 4, pp. 1075–1084, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. E. Miller, A. K. Zimmermann, and A. C. Ouwehand, “Contemporary meta-analysis of short-term probiotic consumption on gastrointestinal transit,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 22, no. 21, pp. 5122–5131, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Dimidi, S. Mark Scott, and K. Whelan, “Probiotics and constipation: mechanisms of action, evidence for effectiveness and utilisation by patients and healthcare professionals,” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 147–157, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Naseer, S. Poola, S. Uraz, and V. Tahan, “Therapeutic effects of prebiotics on constipation: a schematic review,” Current Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 207–215, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. C. Ford, L. A. Harris, B. E. Lacy, E. M. M. Quigley, and P. Moayyedi, “Systematic review with meta-analysis: the efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics and antibiotics in irritable bowel syndrome,” Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 48, no. 10, pp. 1044–1060, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. G. Harris, E. P. Neale, and I. Ferreira, “When poorly conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses can mislead: a critical appraisal and update of systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining the effects of probiotics in the treatment of functional constipation in children,” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 110, no. 1, pp. 177–195, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Dimidi, A. Zdanaviciene, S. Christodoulides et al., “Randomised clinical trial: bifidobacterium lactis NCC2818 probiotic vs. placebo, and impact on gut transit time, symptoms, and gut microbiology in chronic constipation,” Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 251–264, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Tabbers and M. A. Benninga, “Constipation in children: fibre and probiotics,” BMJ Clinical Evidence, vol. 2015, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Picard, J. Fioramonti, A. Francois, T. Robinson, F. Neant, and C. Matuchansky, “Review article: bifidobacteria as probiotic agents—physiological effects and clinical benefits,” Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 495–512, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. L. Khalif, E. M. Quigley, E. A. Konovitch, and I. D. Maximova, “Alterations in the colonic flora and intestinal permeability and evidence of immune activation in chronic constipation,” Digestive and Liver Disease, vol. 37, no. 11, pp. 838–849, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Zoppi, M. Cinquetti, A. Luciano, A. Benini, A. Muner, and E. B. Minelli, “The intestinal ecosystem in chronic functional constipation,” Acta Paediatrica, vol. 87, no. 8, pp. 836–841, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A.-W. Chan, J. M. Tetzlaff, P. C. Gotzsche et al., “SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials,” BMJ, vol. 346, Article ID e7586, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. C. Costilla and A. E. Foxx-Orenstein, “Constipation: understanding mechanisms and management,” Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, vol. 30, pp. 107–115, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. R. Blake, J. M. Raker, and K. Whelan, “Validity and reliability of the bristol stool form Scale in healthy adults and patients with diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome,” Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 693–703, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Luthra, M. Camilleri, N. E. Burr, E. M. M. Quigley, C. J. Black, and A. C. Ford, “Efficacy of drugs in chronic idiopathic constipation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis,” The Lancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 4, no. 11, pp. 831–844, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Liu, S. Yan, J. Wu et al., “Acupuncture for chronic severe functional constipation: a randomized trial,” Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 165, pp. 761–769, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. S. Moore, P. R. Gibson, and R. E. Burgell, “Randomised clinical trial: transabdominal interferential electrical stimulation vs. sham stimulation in women with functional constipation,” Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 51, no. 8, pp. 760–769, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Marquis, C. De La Loge, D. Dubois, A. McDermott, and O. Chassany, “Development and validation of the patient Assessment of constipation quality of life questionnaire,” Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 540–551, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. F. Lovibond and S. H. Lovibond, “The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the beck depression and anxiety inventories,” Behaviour Research and Therapy, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 335–343, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Wynne, L. McHugh, W. Gao et al., “Acceptance and commitment therapy reduces psychological stress in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases,” Gastroenterology, vol. 156, no. 4, pp. 935–945.e1, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Doron and D. R. Snydman, “Risk and safety of probiotics,” Clinical Infectious Diseases, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 129–134, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. L. Wei, R. Z. Yuan, Y. M. Jin et al., “Effect of Baduanjin exercise intervention on cognitive function and quality of life in women with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial,” Trials, vol. 22, no. 1, p. 405, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. E. Miller, A. C. Ouwehand, and A. Ibarra, “Effects of probiotic-containing products on stool frequency and intestinal transit in constipated adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” Annals of Gastroenterology, vol. 30, pp. 629–639, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Chmielewska and H. Szajewska, “Systematic review of randomised controlled trials: probiotics for functional constipation,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 16, pp. 69–75, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Holma, S. M. Hongisto, M. Saxelin, and R. Korpela, “Constipation is relieved more by rye bread than wheat bread or laxatives without increased adverse gastrointestinal effects,” Journal of Nutrition, vol. 140, no. 3, pp. 534–541, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Eskesen, L. Jespersen, B. Michelsen, P. J. Whorwell, S. Muller-Lissner, and C. M. Morberg, “Effect of the probiotic strain Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis, BB-12®, on defecation frequency in healthy subjects with low defecation frequency and abdominal discomfort: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial,” British Journal of Nutrition, vol. 114, no. 10, pp. 1638–1646, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. C. Favretto, B. Pontin, and T. R. Moreira, “Effect of the consumption of a cheese enriched with probiotic organisms (Bifidobacterium lactis bi-07) in improving symptoms of constipation,” Arquivos de Gastroenterologia, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 196–201, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Kondo, J. Z. Xiao, A. Shirahata et al., “Modulatory effects of Bifidobacterium longum BB536 on defecation in elderly patients receiving enteral feeding,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 19, no. 14, pp. 2162–2170, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Agrawal, L. A. Houghton, J. Morris et al., “Clinical trial: the effects of a fermented milk product containing Bifidobacterium lactis DN-173 010 on abdominal distension and gastrointestinal transit in irritable bowel syndrome with constipation,” Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 104–114, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. M. Hongisto, L. Paajanen, M. Saxelin, and R. Korpela, “A combination of fibre-rich rye bread and yoghurt containing Lactobacillus GG improves bowel function in women with self-reported constipation,” European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 319–324, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Malpeli, S. Gonzalez, D. Vicentin, A. Apas, and H. F. Gonzalez, “Randomised, double-blind and placebo-controlled study of the effect of a synbiotic dairy product on orocecal transit time in healthy adult women,” Nutricion Hospitalaria, vol. 27, pp. 1314–1319, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. A. Waller, P. K. Gopal, G. J. Leyer et al., “Dose-response effect of Bifidobacterium lactis HN019 on whole gut transit time and functional gastrointestinal symptoms in adults,” Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 1057–1064, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. J. Krammer, H. von Seggern, J. Schaumburg, and F. Neumer, “Effect of Lactobacillus casei Shirota on colonic transit time in patients with chronic constipation,” Coloproctology, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 109–113, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Bazzocchi, T. Giovannini, C. Giussani, P. Brigidi, and S. Turroni, “Effect of a new synbiotic supplement on symptoms, stool consistency, intestinal transit time and gut microbiota in patients with severe functional constipation: a pilot randomized double-blind, controlled trial,” Techniques in Coloproctology, vol. 18, no. 10, pp. 945–953, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Cudmore, A. Doolan, S. Lacey, and F. Shanahan, “A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study: the effects of a synbiotic, Lepicol, in adults with chronic, functional constipation,” International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 366–377, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Mazlyn, L. H. L. Nagarajah, A. Fatimah, A. K. Norimah, and K. L. Goh, “Effects of a probiotic fermented milk on functional constipation: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study,” Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 1141–1147, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Ojetti, G. Ianiro, A. Tortora et al., “The effect of Lactobacillus reuteri supplementation in adults with chronic functional constipation: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial,” Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 387–391, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Tanaka, K. Takami, T. Nishijima, R. Aoki, T. Mawatari, and T. Ikeda, “Short- and long-term dynamics in the intestinal microbiota following ingestion of Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis GCL2505,” Bioscience of microbiota, Food and Health, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 77–85, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. L. Waitzberg, L. C. Logullo, A. F. Bittencourt et al., “Effect of synbiotic in constipated adult women - a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of clinical response,” Clinical Nutrition, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 27–33, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. X. Yang, M. He, G. Hu et al., “Effect of a fermented milk containing Bifidobacterium lactis DN-173010 on Chinese constipated women,” World Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 14, no. 40, pp. 6237–6243, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Koebnick, I. Wagner, P. Leitzmann, U. Stern, and H. F. Zunft, “Probiotic beverage containing Lactobacillus casei Shirota improves gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with chronic constipation,” Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 17, no. 11, pp. 655–659, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. N. Bu, M. H. Chang, Y. H. Ni, H. L. Chen, and C. C. Cheng, “Lactobacillus casei rhamnosus Lcr35 in children with chronic constipation,” Pediatrics International, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 485–490, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Banaszkiewicz and H. Szajewska, “Ineffectiveness of Lactobacillus GG as an adjunct to lactulose for the treatment of constipation in children: a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial,” The Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 146, no. 3, pp. 364–369, 2005.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Bouvier, S. Meance, C. Bouley, J.-L. Berta, and J. Grimaud, “Effects of consumptionof a milk fermented by the probiotic strain bifidobacterium animalis DN-173 010 on colonic transit times in healthy humans,” Bioscience and Microflora, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 43–48, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Marteau, E. Cuillerier, S. Meance et al., “Bifidobacterium animalis strain DN-173 010 shortens the colonic transit time in healthy women: a double-blind, randomized, controlled study,” Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 587–593, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. J. Merenstein, F. D’Amico, C. Palese et al., “Short-term, daily intake of yogurt containing Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis Bf-6 (LMG 24384) does not affect colonic transit time in women,” British Journal of Nutrition, vol. 111, no. 2, pp. 279–286, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ishizuka, K. Tomizuka, R. Aoki et al., “Effects of administration of Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis GCL2505 on defecation frequency and bifidobacterial microbiota composition in humans,” Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, vol. 113, no. 5, pp. 587–591, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Del Piano, S. Carmagnola, A. Anderloni et al., “The use of probiotics in healthy volunteers with evacuation disorders and hard stools: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study,” Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, vol. 44, pp. S30–S34, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Riezzo, A. Orlando, B. D’Attoma, M. Linsalata, M. Martulli, and F. Russo, “Randomised double blind placebo controlled trial on Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938: improvement in symptoms and bowel habit in functional constipation,” Beneficial Microbes, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 51–60, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Riezzo, A. Orlando, B. D’Attoma et al., “Randomised clinical trial: efficacy of Lactobacillus paracasei-enriched artichokes in the treatment of patients with functional constipation--a double-blind, controlled, crossover study,” Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 441–450, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Mirghafourvand, A. Homayouni Rad, S. M. Alizadeh Charandabi, Z. Fardiazar, and K. Shokri, “The effect of probiotic yogurt on constipation in pregnant women: a randomized controlled clinical trial,” Iranian Red Crescent Medical Journal, vol. 18, no. 11, Article ID e39870, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. De Paula, E. Carmuega, and R. Weill, “Effect of the ingestion of a symbiotic yogurt on the bowel habits of women with functional constipation,” Acta Gastroenterologica Latinoamericana, vol. 38, pp. 16–25, 2008.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Ding, X. Ge, X. Zhang et al., “Efficacy of synbiotics in patients with slow transit constipation: a prospective randomized trial,” Nutrients, vol. 8, no. 10, p. 605, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Fateh, S. Iravani, M. Frootan, M. R. Rasouli, and S. Saadat, “Synbiotic preparation in men suffering from functional constipation: a randomised controlled trial,” Swiss Medical Weekly, vol. 141, Article ID w13239, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Jayasimhan, N. Y. Yap, Y. Roest, R. Rajandram, and K. F. Chin, “Efficacy of microbial cell preparation in improving chronic constipation: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial,” Clinical Nutrition, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 928–934, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. O. Magro, L. M. R. de Oliveira, I. Bernasconi et al., “Effect of yogurt containing polydextrose, Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM and Bifidobacterium lactis HN019: a randomized, double-blind, controlled study in chronic constipation,” Nutrition Journal, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 75, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Y. Yoon, J. M. Cha, J. K. Oh et al., “Probiotics ameliorate stool consistency in patients with chronic constipation: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study,” Digestive Diseases and Sciences, vol. 63, no. 10, pp. 2754–2764, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Wenjun Liu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

862

Downloads

619

Citations