
To analyse the scientific evidence that exists for the advertising claims made for two products containing Lactobacillus casei and Bifidobacterium lactis and to conduct a comparison between the published literature and what is presented in the corporate website.Systematic review, using Medline through Pubmed and Embase. We included human clinical trials that exclusively measured the effect of Lactobacillus casei or Bifidobacterium lactis on a healthy population, and where the objective was related to the health claims made for certain products in advertising. We assessed the levels of evidence and the strength of the recommendation according to the classification criteria established by the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM). We also assessed the outcomes of the studies published on the website that did not appear in the search.Of the 440 articles identified, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Only four (25%) of these presented a level of evidence of 1b and a recommendation grade of A, all corresponding to studies on product containing Bifidobacterium lactis, and only 12 of the 16 studies were published on the corporate website (47).There is insufficient scientific evidence to support the health claims made for these products, especially in the case of product containing Lactobacillus casei.
Lactobacillus Casei, Evidence-Based Medicine, Probiotics, Fermented Milk Products, Lacticaseibacillus casei, Bifidobacterium animalis, Advertising, Fermented milk products, Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Systematic review, Humans, Systematic Review, Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus casei, Comunicación Audiovisual y Publicidad
Lactobacillus Casei, Evidence-Based Medicine, Probiotics, Fermented Milk Products, Lacticaseibacillus casei, Bifidobacterium animalis, Advertising, Fermented milk products, Medicina Preventiva y Salud Pública, Systematic review, Humans, Systematic Review, Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus casei, Comunicación Audiovisual y Publicidad
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 3 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
