{"id":8055,"date":"2022-06-16T08:17:04","date_gmt":"2022-06-16T13:17:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/internationalprobiotics.org\/?p=8055"},"modified":"2022-06-16T08:17:07","modified_gmt":"2022-06-16T13:17:07","slug":"how-to-interpret-the-results-of-a-probiotic-clinical-trial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/internationalprobiotics.org\/home\/how-to-interpret-the-results-of-a-probiotic-clinical-trial\/","title":{"rendered":"How to Interpret the Results of a Probiotic Clinical Trial"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

written by Susan Hewlings, PhD, RD, Director, Scientific Affairs at Nutrasource – IPA Education & Communication member<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is a term that has gained a lot of traction in most health-related disciplines. It seems like a good idea to make health-related decisions based on scientific evidence whether you are a practitioner or a consumer. What that really means and how exactly to do it is a little less clear. According to Engebretsen et al (2015), the goal of EBM for practitioners is to promote more conscientious and systematic clinical decision making (2). To do so requires interpretation in both individual studies and the scientific knowledge of a given topic as a whole. The precise definition of EBM is not completely agreed upon, however, it involves the integration of (2) clinical experience and expertise; (3) scientific evidence; and (4) patient values and preferences to provide high\u2010quality services (3). While many professional associations attempt to assimilate scientific information into position stands and guidance, these guidelines can\u2019t cover every clinical topic. Therefore, each practitioner must make their own assessment of the scientific literature. Here we attempt to provide a few tips in assessing a single study but by no means do we cover every aspect in this short paragraph and, while the list was developed with practitioners in mind, it could be applied by the consumer as well. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are generally considered the gold standard for research design, making studies of this nature attractive in making clinical decisions. As outlined by Twells et al. (2015), when assessing a RCT it is important to carefully consider many aspects of the design such as (5):<\/p>\n\n\n\n