Work overview

Section 08 of 19

Subgroup and sensitivity analyses

Prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics therapy in critically ill patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Junji Hatakeyama, Ryo Yamamoto, Minoru Yoshida, Kohei Yamada, Kazushige Inoue, Takayuki Irahara, Satomi Ichimaru, Nobuto Nakanishi, Naoki Higashibeppu, Kensuke Nakamura, and Joji Kotani · 2026

Contents

Section 08 of 19

  1. 01Introduction
  2. 02Methods
  3. 03Search strategy
  4. 04Study selection and inclusion criteria
  5. 05Outcomes
  6. 06Data extraction and risk of bias assessment
  7. 07Statistical analysis
  8. 08Subgroup and sensitivity analyses
  9. 09Results
  10. 10Discussion
  11. 11Conclusion
  12. 12Authors’ contributions
  13. 13Consent for publication
  14. 14Ethics approval and consent to participate
  15. 15Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process
  16. 16Funding
  17. 17Availability of data and material
  18. 18Data availability
  19. 19Declaration of competing interest
Text size
Work overview

Section 8 of 19

Subgroup and sensitivity analyses

Junji Hatakeyama, Ryo Yamamoto, Minoru Yoshida, Kohei Yamada, Kazushige Inoue, Takayuki Irahara, Satomi Ichimaru, Nobuto Nakanishi, Naoki Higashibeppu, Kensuke Nakamura, and Joji Kotani · about 1 minutes

Prespecified subgroup analyses were undertaken to explore potential sources of clinical heterogeneity. Subgroups were defined according to patient population (medical, surgical, or mixed), intervention duration, and whether oligosaccharides were included as a component of the intervention. Intervention duration was obtained from the methods section of each study or, when not explicitly reported, from the mean or median treatment duration presented in the results. When sufficient data were available, subgroup analyses were performed within the network meta-analytic framework.

Several sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the primary findings. These analyses comprised the exclusion of studies judged to be at high risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool, the exclusion of studies with fewer than 50 participants to assess the potential influence of small-study effects, and restricting the analysis to trials with a limited control group, defined as placebo or usual care clearly confirmed to be fiber-free. Subsequently, sensitivity analysis results were compared with those of the primary analysis to evaluate the consistency of the findings.