Skip to main content

Effects of probiotic/synbiotic supplementation on body weight in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized-controlled trials



The aim of the present study was to assess the effect of probiotic/synbiotic supplementation on anthropometric measures in adults with diabetes, independent of body weight.


PubMed, Scopus, Web of Sciences and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up until December 14, 2022. The effect sizes were pooled using an inverse-variance random-effects model. The methodological quality of studies as well as the quality of evidence was assessed using standard tools.


Thirty-two RCTs met the established inclusion criteria. Overall, compared with the respective control groups, probiotic/synbiotic supplementation resulted in a significant reduction in body weight (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -0.50 kg; 95% CI: -0.83, -0.17; I2 = 79.8%, n = 27 studies]), body mass index (WMD: -0.24 kg/m2; 95% CI: -0.39, -0.09; I2 = 85.7%, n = 30 studies), and waist circumference (WMD: -0.90 cm; 95% CI: -1.13, -0.52; I2 = 0%, n = 11 studies). However, hip circumference and waist to hip ratio were not significantly improved.


Our analysis revealed that probiotic/synbiotic supplementation may assist with weight management in patients with diabetes, especially when consumed at higher doses, in younger adults, and in participants with obesity. However, more studies are needed to elucidate the anti-obesity effects of specific strains of probiotics/synbiotics.

Peer Review reports


The worldwide prevalence of obesity has tripled in the last four decades [1]. Although the origin of obesity is multifactorial, the chronic imbalance between excess energy intake and low energy expenditure is thought to be the principle cause of weight gain [2, 3]. Most individuals with overweight or obesity suffer from some form of metabolic impairment (e.g., insulin resistance), which may manifest into chronic conditions such as Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) [4]. It is well established that weight management can preserve glucose/insulin function, mitigate the progression of chronic diseases, and is recommended as a therapeutic strategy in patients with T2DM [5,6,7,8,9].

Recent evidence suggests that an imbalance in the gut microbiota, broadly termed “gut dysbiosis” may be associated with deregulated energy hemostasis [10]. Gut dysbiosis is also associated with obesity-related inflammation, which can exacerbate metabolic disorders in T2DM [11]. There has been a growing interest in the use of probiotic and symbiotic supplementation for modulating gut microbiota, glucose metabolism, and body weight in patients with T2DM. It has been implied that the mechanism underlying the anti-obesity effect of probiotics is mainly related to the production of short-chain fatty acids, which can in turn influence appetite-regulating hormones [12,13,14], improve insulin sensitivity, and increase energy expenditure [15]. Probiotics are also thought to have anti-obesity effects due, in part, to production of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which has shown to reduce bodyweight via heightened lipid oxidation and adipocyte apoptosis, as well as reduced lipogenesis and inflammation [16] .

Two previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses aimed to investigate the effect of probiotic supplementation on body weight in patients with T2DM [17, 18]; however, neither study reached a consensus. Body mass index (BMI) was the only anthropometric outcome included in these studies, and other metrics such as body weight, waist or hip circumference (WC or HC), waist to hip ratio (WHR), or body composition were not considered [17, 18]. In addition, there were substantial methodological limitations, such as poor search strategy, not including relevant and qualified studies, and inclusion of studies in the final analyses that used probiotics concomitantly with other interventions.

Therefore, in the present study we aimed to determine whether supplementation with probiotics and synbiotics can affect anthropometric measures in adult males and females with T2DM, using a meta-analysis approach while considering the limitations of previous studies. According to the Cochrane recommendation, we decided to include only randomized controlled trials, as they are the preferred design to draw a casual association and are least likely to be biased, especially in the context of selection bias and confounding bias which may arise in non-randomized studies [19].


The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [20], and was registered on PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews). Registration code: CRD42021273570 Available from:

Search strategy

A systematic literature search was performed to identify appropriate studies in four electronic databases including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library until February 2021, and was updated on 14th December 2022. No language restrictions were applied. We also did not apply any key words, so as not to miss any articles. A complete electronic search strategy for PubMed is provided in Supplementary Table 1. The reference lists of the eligible studies were manually checked to identify other relevant studies. If there were missing data or we could not acquire full texts, we contacted the corresponding author.

Inclusion criteria

Three reviewers independently evaluated the titles and abstracts of all acquired articles (SS, FM, MA). The following criteria were used to determine which studies would be included in the final analysis: (1) RCTs with either parallel or crossover design; (2) conducted in patients with pre-diabetes or T2DM; (3) compared the effects of probiotic/synbiotic supplementation or fortified foods in any strains and dosages with placebo or non-fortified foods; and (4) reported at least one of the following anthropometric measures: body weight, BMI, WC, HC, WHR or body composition.

Exclusion criteria

We excluded trials that had a follow-up duration of less than one week, lack of placebo or control group, conducted in pregnant or lactating women, lack of access to suitable data for analysis despite contacting the corresponding author, or examined the effect of probiotics or synbiotics with adjunctive supplementation.

Data extraction

Four reviewers (SS, FM, FD, MA) independently extracted the following data from each eligible study: study characteristics (first author’s name, publication year, study location, sample size, study design, follow up duration, study location, sample size in trial arms, type and dose of intervention/placebo, anthropometric outcomes), participants characteristics (sex, age and medical condition), as well as means and standard deviations (SDs) of anthropometric indices at baseline and at the end of the study, or mean differences (MDs) and SDs during the follow-up period. Data were cross-checked to minimize potential errors and incongruities were resolved by consensus with the corresponding author (SA). Any disagreements were resolved through consensus-based discussion. The interrater reliability was assessed and reported as Cohen’s kappa coefficient (κ) at the stage of initial and full-text screening [21].

Risk of bias assessment and quality of evidence

The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess methodological quality of the selected RCTs based on the following domains: (i) random sequence generation; (ii) concealment of allocation; (iii) blinding of participants; (iv) personnel and outcome assessors; (v) selective reporting; (vi) and funding bias [22]. Two authors independently assessed the domains (SS, FD) and indicated risk of bias as low, high, or unclear. Incongruities were resolved by consensus with a third author (SA).

The quality of evidence for each outcome was rated as high, moderate, low, or very low, according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. The quality of evidence of a trial was first set as high and was downgraded based on the five domains referring to the risk of bias, publication bias, imprecision of results, heterogeneity, and indirectness of evidence [23].

Statistical analysis

We examined the effect of probiotic/synbiotic supplementation or fortified foods on changes in anthropometric outcomes if there were three or more eligible studies. The mean differences (MDs) in anthropometric measures between the groups, along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to calculate effect sizes. If a study did not provide the value for mean change, it was calculated as the difference between the final mean and the baseline mean. If standard deviations were not included for the differences between final and baseline means, values were calculated based on the formula given in Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews [24]. Based on the included studies, a correlation coefficient of 0.99 was calculated for weight and 0.98 for BMI. The random-effects model (DerSimonian-Laird method) was performed to obtain the overall pooled effect size [25]. In trials with multiple arms (comparing both probiotics and synbiotics with a control group), the probiotic intervention arm was included in the main analysis, to avoid double counting of the control group in the analysis. Regarding trials use cross-over design, we included the results from paired analyses in main analysis. Regarding studies with multiple endpoints, the longer follow-up duration was considered for the final analysis. Moreover, if there were duplicate reports from the same population the most complete report was included in the final analysis.

Statistical heterogeneity between trials was tested using Cochran’s Q-test (significant level set as p < 0.1) and I2 (≥ 50% considered to reveal substantial heterogeneity among trials). Eight subgroup analyses were performed by age, sex, study location, study design, supplementation type (probiotics or synbiotics), probiotics/synbiotics genera (synbiotics, Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium & Lactobacillus, Saccharomyces and mixed genera), follow-up duration (< 12 wk; ≥12 wk), obesity status of participants (normal weight, overweight and obese, mixed population), probiotic dosage, and study quality (poor, fair, good) to determine potential sources of heterogeneity. We also conducted random-effects meta-regressions to assess between-group heterogeneity and examine the effect of other potential confounding variables including participants mean age, sample size, probiotic dosage, and study duration on the estimated effect size. Sensitivity analysis was employed to determine the effect of each individual study on the overall results by using the leave-one-out method. Publication bias was investigated for outcomes with ≥ 10 studies through visual inspection of the funnel plots along with statistical assessment by employing Egger’s and Begg’s tests. If there was publication bias, the trim-and-fill method was implemented to correct funnel plot asymmetry. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 14 (STATA Corp., College Station, Texas) with significance set at p < 0.05.


The primary search strategy yielded 4905 publications, of which 1348 were duplicates (Fig. 1). After screening the titles and abstracts, 97 relevant articles were selected for full-text evaluation. Seventy studies were excluded for the following reasons: animal study (n = 1), co-supplementation (n = 4), insufficient data (n = 3), conference abstract (n = 1), without interventions of interest (n = 11), without outcomes of interest (n = 36), conducted in non-diabetic subjects (n = 2), without a control group (n = 2), duplicate reports (n = 7), and without full-text (n = 3) (Supplementary Table 2). Five studies were also added after the last update [26,27,28,29,30]. Finally, 32 eligible RCTs were included in the meta-analysis to assess the effect of probiotic/synbiotic supplementation on body weight (n = 27) [26, 28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52], BMI (n = 30) [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40, 42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51, 53,54,55,56], WC (n = 11) [26, 28, 30, 35,36,37,38,39, 44, 45, 48], HC (n = 6) [28, 30, 36, 37, 45, 48], and WHR (n = 6) [28, 36, 38, 43, 45, 55]. The reviewers’ agreement for including studies was high at the times of the abstract screening (Cohen’s kappa = 0.82) and full-text screening (Cohen’s kappa = 0.94) phases.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study selection process

Study characteristics

The characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1. Included trials were published from 2013 to 2020 and were conducted in Asian countries [Iran (n = 17), Japan (n = 4), Saudi Arabia (n = 2), Malaysia (n = 1), Indonesia (n = 1), Turkey (n = 1), and India (n = 1)], European countries [Denmark, Sweden, Austria and Ukraine], and one in Oceania country [New zealand]. All trials applied a parallel design, except for the study conducted by Asemi et al., which used a crossover design. The majority of the included trials recruited both sexes, whereas two trials focused exclusively on males [37] and one trial on females [28].

Table 1 The characteristics of trials that investigated the effect of probiotic/synbiotic supplementation on anthropometric indices in patients with diabetes and were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis

The majority of the included studies enrolled patients with T2DM (n = 25), while the remaining were conducted in patients with pre-diabetes (n = 4), and a mix population of both Type 1 and 2 diabetes (n = 3). Treatment duration ranged from 4 to 26 weeks. Different genus of microbial organisms was assessed across studies including Lactobacillus (10 trials), Bifidobacterium (n = 1), Bacillus (one trial), a mixture of Lactobacillus & Bifidobacterium (nine trials), Saccharomyces (one trial), and multi-genus mixtures (three trials). The remaining six trials evaluated the effect of synbiotics on anthropometric measures. Among the included studies, the daily dose of probiotic supplementation ranged from 1 × 108 to 3 × 1011 colony forming units (CFU). The effects of fortified-foods including fermented milk (n = 4), probiotic yogurt, probiotic honey, probiotic soy milk, and probiotic/synbiotic bread were also assessed in the included studies.

A number of side-effects were reported following supplementation including gastric disturbances, [35, 39, 44, 54] flatulence, [36, 41, 55] nausea, [39] hypoglycemia, [44] headache, [44] diarrhea [36, 37, 39] and constipation [41].

Risk of bias and quality of evidence

The methodological quality of eligible studies was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration’s tool (Supplementary Table 3). Twenty-three studies were rated as good quality, five as fair quality, and four were judged as having poor methodological quality. The main source of bias was the lack of explanation regarding concealment procedures. Although most of the included studies provided a description of participant blinding and outcome assessments, except for two studies [27, 56] which rated as high risk of bias for blinding, there was no risk of bias for selective reporting, or funding sources.

The quality of evidence was very low for the effect of probiotic/synbiotic supplementation on body weight, low for BMI, HC and WHR and moderate for WC (Supplementary Table 4).


Weight.The meta-analysis of 27 trials (n = 1787 participants) indicated that probiotic/synbiotic supplementation resulted in significant weight loss compared with placebo, with a considerable level of heterogeneity (WMD = -0.50 kg; 95% CI: -0.83, -0.17; P = 0.003; I2 = 79.8%; P-heterogeneity < 0.001) (Table 2; Fig. 2 (A)). Subgroup analysis according to the study quality and age could reduce the heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses revealed a greater weight loss following probiotic/synbiotic supplementation in: (i) studies conducted in Asia; (ii) participants under 60 years of age; (iii) participants with overweight and obesity; (iv) studies using synbiotic supplementation; (v) studies with a higher dose of probiotics; and (vi) studies with good methodological quality. A greater weight loss was also observed when probiotic/ synbiotic supplementation was administered for greater than 12 weeks (Supplementary Table 5).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot of randomized controlled clinical trials illustrating weighted mean difference (WMD) in A; body weigh change (kg), B: BMI change (kg/m2) between the probiotics/synbiotics supplementation and control groups for all eligible studies

Analysis was conducted using random effects model

Table 2 Meta-analysis showing the effect of probiotics/synbiotics supplementation on anthropometric indices in patients with diabetes using random effects model

BMI. The overall meta-analysis of 30 trials (n = 2098 participants) showed a significant reduction in BMI following probiotic/synbiotic supplementation in patients with diabetes (WMD= -0.24 kg/m2; 95% CI: -0.39, -0.09; P = 0.001; I2 = 85.7%; P-heterogeneity < 0.001) (Table 2; Fig. 2 (B)). A significant between-study heterogeneity was also detected, which appeared to be associated with different types of probiotic supplementation, age, and BMI status. The subgroup analysis revealed that supplementation with probiotics/synbiotics resulted in a significant reduction in BMI when participants: (i) were less than 60 years of age; (ii) lived in Asia; (iii) were overweight and obese; vi) when the study was rated as having good quality; and v) were followed for less than 12 weeks. Furthermore, supplementation with synbiotics or a mixed probiotic product showed a significant reduction in BMI (Supplementary Table 6).

WC. The overall estimate of the 11 studies (n = 631 participants) showed a significant reduction in WC following probiotic/synbiotic supplementation in patients with diabetes, with no evidence of between-study heterogeneity (WMD= -0.90 cm; 95% CI: -1.13, -0.52; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%; P-heterogeneity = 0.99) (Table 2; Fig. 3 (A)). Subgroup analysis revealed a significant decrease in WC following probiotic/synbiotic supplementation in studies: (i) conducted in participants under 60 years of age; (ii) in which participants were overweight and obese; and (iii) with good quality that were less than 12 weeks. In addition, Asians demonstrated a greater decrease in WC following supplementation with probiotics/synbiotics compared with Europeans. We also found a significant decrease in WC following supplementation with a higher dose of probiotics (> 10 × 109 CFU/day) (Supplementary Table 7).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of randomized controlled clinical trials illustrating weighted mean difference (WMD) in A: waist circumference change (cm), B: hip circumference change (cm), and C: waist to hip ratio change between the probiotics/synbiotics supplementation and control groups for all eligible studies. Analysis was conducted using random effects model

HC. Pooled data from six trials (n = 250 participants) showed that supplementation with probiotics/synbiotics had no significant effect on HC, with no evidence of heterogeneity (WMD= -1.34 cm; 95% CI: -2.80, 0.12 cm; P = 0.07; I2 = 0.0%; P-heterogeneity = 0.74) (Table 2; Fig. 3 (B)). Subgroup analysis was not performed due to insufficient data.

WHR. Pooled data from six trials (n = 247 participants) demonstrated no significant effect of probiotics/synbiotics supplementation on WHR, with a substantial between-study heterogeneity (WMD= -0.01; 95% CI: −0.04, 0.02; P = 0.36; I2 = 66.8%; P-heterogeneity = 0.01) (Table 2; Fig. 3 (C)). However, due to the low number of studies we were unable to conduct subgroup analyses, and the source of heterogeneity remained undetermined.

Body fat mass. The effect of probiotic/synbiotic supplementation on body fat mass was investigated across three trials [44, 45, 47]. Two trials reported change in body fat mass as percent change and one trial as absolute change (kg) [44, 47]. No significant effect of probiotic/synbiotic supplementation on body fat mass was reported [45].


Meta-regression showed that mean age, sample size and probiotic dosage did not influence the estimated effect size of any anthropometric measure. However, the effect of probiotic/synbiotic supplementation on body weight (Slope: 0.03, CI: 0.00, 0.05; P = 0.02) was associated with the number of participants (Supplementary Table 8).

Sensitivity analysis and publication bias

The leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was performed for each outcome, and did not influence the results. Publication bias was examined for body weight and BMI, and visual inspection of funnel plots suggested symmetry estimate, which was confirmed by related tests (Begg’s test, P = 0.60; Egger’s test, P = 0.63 for body weight; Begg’s test, P = 0.13; Egger’s test, P = 0.13 for BMI, for waist circumference; Begg’s test, P = 0.53; Egger’s test, P = 0.67) (Supplementary Fig. 1).


The results of this meta-analysis demonstrate that supplementation with probiotics/synbiotics may result in improvements in body weight, WC, and BMI in patients with diabetes. We also found that probiotic/synbiotic supplementation produces potentially greater anti-obesity effects when administered at higher doses in younger adults and in individuals living in Asian countries. In addition, probiotic/synbiotic supplementation is effective in reducing body weight in patients with obesity, but not in normal-weight individuals. Moreover, it appears that synbiotics may exert greater weight loss than probiotics.

Although, some of the previous meta-analyses suggest that there is no effect of probiotics on body weight in patients with diabetic nephropathy [57], women with polycystic ovary syndrome [58], overweight and obese participants [59], or adults with metabolic syndrome [60], other studies indicate an improvement in anthropometric measures following probiotic supplementation in the general population [61] or in overweight and obese subjects [62,63,64]. There are two published meta-analyses examining the effect of probiotics on anthropometric measures in people with Type 2 diabetes, both did not observe a significant effect on BMI [17, 18]. However, in these meta-analyses, BMI is the only reported anthropometric measure, and as previously explained, these studies have several methodological limitations which may have affected the results.

There is currently debate regarding whether the observed weight loss elicited by probiotics is clinically significant. Consistent with previous meta-analyses [61, 62, 64] we observed a relatively small reduction in body weight following probiotic/synbiotic supplementation. Although a 5% reduction in body weight is accepted as a meaningful weight loss, there is some evidence to suggest that a lower percentage of weight loss may be beneficial [65, 66]. It appears that probiotics alone may not be clinically effective for weight loss, but probiotic supplementation could be introduced as a safe complementary approach to common weight-loss strategies (i.e., calorie restriction and increased physical activity). Along with the weight-reducing effects of probiotics, these supplements have favorable safety profiles and positively influence metabolic function in patients with diabetes [66]. As such, the addition of probiotic supplements to a standard diabetes treatment regimen may be advantageous.

The exact mechanisms behind the anti-obesity effects of probiotics are not completely understood; however, some mechanisms have been proposed. Probiotics have shown to affect bile acid metabolism in the intestine [67], which in turn can lead to decreased fat absorption and increased lipolysis. Moreover, gut microbiota may influence: (i) fatty acid oxidation and lipogenesis (via activation of AMPK) [68]; (ii) appetite (by the production of short chain fatty acids [SCFAs] and their signaling function which affects peptide YY, glucagon-like peptide 1, and ghrelin) [69]; (iii) triglyceride accumulation in adipose tissue (through intestinal fasting induced adipose factor and its regulatory role on lipoprotein lipase [69]; and iv) by producing SCFAs that may enhance insulin signaling, apoptosis of adipocytes, and attenuate lipid accumulation [70]. Although probiotics could influence gut microbiota abundance and composition to improve metabolic health, all of the mentioned metabolic effects could strictly be due to weight loss following probiotic supplementation; however, this needs to be further investigated.

A significant improvement in anthropometric measures (body weight, BMI, and WC) was observed when analysis was restricted to studies conducted among overweight and obese patients and not normal weight individuals or mixed populations, perhaps due to higher starting baseline body weight which provided greater opportunity to see changes. Also, gut microbiota composition has shown to be altered with obesity [71], and modulation of intestinal microbiota with probiotic supplementation could explain the greater weight loss observed in obese subjects. SCFAs are also produced as the final products of soluble fiber fermentation. This could explain our finding regarding the greater weight loss observed following synbiotic supplementation. Moreover, the anti-obesity effects of dietary fiber have been well established [72].

We observed higher weight reduction in Asian relative to European countries. A previous meta-analysis also showed that the favorable metabolic effects of probiotics became non-significant when RCTs conducted in Iran were excluded [61]. Multiple factors such as genetics, diet, lifestyle, and other environmental factors may affect the response to probiotics. For instance, higher consumption of fermentable carbohydrates in Asian countries [73] (which provide a supportive environment for probiotic function) could be a dietary factor affecting the results. However, it should be noted that in the present meta-analysis, the number of trials conducted in Asian countries were substantially greater than those conducted in European countries (23 vs. 4, respectively).

In line with previous meta-analyses [61, 63, 64, 74], our results suggest that in addition to the type of probiotics, dose of supplementation also plays an important role in promoting the anti-obesity effects of probiotics. For example, high dose supplementation (> 10 × 109 CFU/day) resulted in a significant weight reduction, while lower doses did not. However, one meta-analysis reported greater weight reduction following medium and low dose probiotic supplementation [63]. The different cutoffs used to categorize probiotic dosage may explain the inconsistency, as John et al. [63] defined medium dosage as 1–30 × 109 CFU/day, which overlaps with both low and high dose categories in the present study. Further research is needed to identify the maximally tolerated dose for weight reduction and/or the minimal effective dose for promoting weight loss.

Our results also showed probiotic/synbiotic supplementation is more effective in younger participants (< 60 yrs). It has been reported that there is an age-dependent variation in the composition of gut microbiota and its related metabolic pathways [75, 76], which may lead to an altered response to probiotics supplementation. However, the limited number of trials in older participants makes it difficult to reach a finite conclusion.

The present meta-analysis pooled data from RCTs to draw a causal association between probiotic/synbiotic supplementation and body weight measures in patients with diabetes. In addition, using a comprehensive search strategy, without any restriction on outcomes ensured that we obtained all eligible studies. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed and showed good quality for most of the included studies. However, there are some limitations that should be considered while interpreting these findings. More than half of the included RCTs were conducted in Iran and only four studies (out of 27 included trials) were conducted among non-Asian populations (i.e., in European countries), which limits the generalizability of our results. Furthermore, some characteristics including baseline weight status, duration of diabetes, change in energy intake and physical activity, dietary fiber intake, and the medications used were not controlled for in the included trials. Although the statistical heterogeneity was relatively high for body weight, BMI, and WHR, the sources of heterogeneity were identified through subgroup analyses. For BMI and body weight, factors including age of participants, methodological quality of RCTs, and baseline weight status could explain the statistical heterogeneity; however, subgroup analysis for WHR was not performed (due to the low number of studies) and source of heterogeneity remained unclear. We conducted a subgroup analysis based on the probiotic genus; however, after dividing the groups, the number of studies was not adequate to assess the effect of specific probiotic strains. Finally, it was not clear whether probiotic/synbiotic supplementation could modify gut microbiota composition, and as such, this variable should be assessed in future studies.


In conclusion, although the anti-obesity effect of probiotics/synbiotics is not clinically significant, it may play a facilitating role in weight reduction in patients with obesity and diabetes, and could be used as a complementary therapeutic approach. However, before probiotics/synbiotics can be widely recommended, it is necessary to evaluate the optimal dose and strain.

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.


  1. Haththotuwa RN, Wijeyaratne CN, Senarath U. Worldwide epidemic of obesity. In: Mahmood TA, Arulkumaran S, Chervenak FA, editors. Obesity and Obstetrics (Second Edition): Elsevier; 2020. p. 3–8.

  2. Blüher MJNRE. Obesity: global epidemiology and pathogenesis. 2019;15(5):288–98.

  3. Bazshahi E, Sheikhhossein F, Amini MR, Shab-Bidar SJIJoCP. The association of dietary energy density and the risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of observational studies. 2021;75(10):e14291.

  4. Bell JA, Kivimaki M, Hamer M. Metabolically healthy obesity and risk of incident type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Obes Rev. 2014;15(6):504–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Huang S, Shi K, Ren Y, Wang J, Yan W-F, Qian W-L et al. Association of magnitude of weight loss and weight variability with mortality and major cardiovascular events among individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2022;21(1):1–13.

  6. Terranova CO, Brakenridge CL, Lawler S, Eakin EG, Reeves MMJD, Obesity. Metabolism. Effectiveness of lifestyle-based weight loss interventions for adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. 2015;17(4):371–8.

  7. Mohammadpour S, Amini MR, Shahinfar H, Tijani AJ, Shahavandi M, Ghorbaninejad P, et al. Effects of glucomannan supplementation on weight loss in overweight and obese adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Obes Med. 2020;19:100276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Shahavandi M, Amini MR, Shahinfar H, Shab-Bidar S. Major dietary patterns and predicted cardiovascular disease risk in an iranian adult population. Nutr Health. 2021;27(1):27–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sharin T, Ahammed B, Elahi M, Mamun MSA, Paul DK. Impact of physical exercise and food habit on type ii diabetes mellitus medicated patients-A cross sectional study. J Chem Health Risks. 2021;11:33–43. Special Issue: Bioactive Compounds: Their Role in the Prevention and Treatment of Diseases).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Cani PD, Van Hul M, Lefort C, Depommier C, Rastelli M. Everard AJNm. Microb Regul organismal energy Homeost. 2019;1(1):34–46.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sanz Y, Moya-Pérez A. Microbiota, inflammation and obesity. Microbial endocrinology: The microbiota-gut-brain axis in health and disease. 2014:291–317.

  12. Queipo-Ortuño MI, Seoane LM, Murri M, Pardo M, Gomez-Zumaquero JM, Cardona F, et al. Gut microbiota composition in male rat models under different nutritional status and physical activity and its association with serum leptin and ghrelin levels. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(5):e65465.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Yao H, Fan C, Fan X, Lu Y, Wang Y, Wang R, et al. Effects of gut microbiota on leptin expression and body weight are lessened by high-fat diet in mice. Br J Nutr. 2020;124(4):396–406.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Byrne C, Chambers E, Morrison D, Frost G. The role of short chain fatty acids in appetite regulation and energy homeostasis. Int J Obes. 2015;39(9):1331–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kimura I, Inoue D, Hirano K, Tsujimoto G. The SCFA receptor GPR43 and energy metabolism. Front Endocrinol. 2014;5:85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. den Hartigh LJJN. Conjugated linoleic acid effects on cancer, obesity, and atherosclerosis: A review of pre-clinical and human trials with current perspectives. 2019;11(2):370.

  17. Jafarabadi MA, Dehghani A, Khalili L, Barzegar A, Mesrizad M, Hassanalilou T. A Meta-analysis of Randomized controlled trials of the Effect of Probiotic Food or supplement on glycemic response and body Mass Index in patients with type 2 diabetes, updating the evidence. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2021;17(3):356–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kocsis T, Molnár B, Németh D, Hegyi P, Szakács Z, Bálint A, et al. Probiotics have beneficial metabolic effects in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, McAleenan A, Reeves BC. Higgins JPJChfsroi. Assessing risk of bias in a non-randomized study. 2019:621 – 41.

  20. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–e34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cohen JJE. measurement p. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. 1960;20(1):37–46.

  22. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.Bmj. 2011;343.

  23. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):380–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Shemilt I, Mugford M, Byford S, Drummond M, Eisenstein E, Knapp M et al. 15 Incorporating economics evidence. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2008:449.

  25. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials revisited. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;45:139–45.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Barthow C, Hood F, Crane J, Huthwaite M, Weatherall M, Parry-Strong A, et al. A randomised controlled trial of a probiotic and a prebiotic examining metabolic and mental health outcomes in adults with pre-diabetes. BMJ open. 2022;12(3):e055214.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Kanazawa A, Aida M, Yoshida Y, Kaga H, Katahira T, Suzuki L et al. Effects of Synbiotic Supplementation on Chronic Inflammation and the Gut Microbiota in Obese Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized Controlled Study.Nutrients. 2021;13(2).

  28. Rustanti N, Murdiati A, Juffrie M, Rahayu ES. Effect of Probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum Dad-13 on Metabolic Profiles and Gut Microbiota in Type 2 Diabetic Women: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial.Microorganisms. 2022;10(9).

  29. Şahin K, Şahintürk Y, Köker G, Özçelik Köker G, Bostan F, Kök M, et al. Metformin with Versus without Concomitant Probiotic Therapy in newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes or Prediabetes: a comparative analysis in relation to Glycemic Control, Gastrointestinal Side Effects, and treatment compliance. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2022;33(11):925–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Velayati A, Kareem I, Sedaghat M, Sohrab G, Nikpayam O, Hedayati M et al. Does symbiotic supplementation which contains Bacillus Coagulans Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Lactobacillus acidophilus and fructooligosaccharide has favourite effects in patients with type-2 diabetes? A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Archives of physiology and biochemistry. 2021:1–8.

  31. Mazrouei Arani N, Emam-Djomeh Z, Asemi Z, Tavakolipour H, Sharafati-Chaleshtori R. Effect of consumption of Honey containing Bacillus coagulans on inflammatory and oxidative stress factors in patients with Diabetic Nephropathy. Qom Univ Med Sci J. 2019;13(3):23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Asemi Z, Khorrami-Rad A, Alizadeh S-A, Shakeri H, Esmaillzadeh A. Effects of synbiotic food consumption on metabolic status of diabetic patients: a double-blind randomized cross-over controlled clinical trial. Clin Nutr. 2014;33(2):198–203.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Asemi Z, Bahmani S, Shakeri H, Jamal A, Faraji A-M. Effect of multispecies probiotic supplements on serum minerals, liver enzymes and blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes. Int J Diabetes Developing Ctries. 2015;35(2):90–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Tajabadi-Ebrahimi M, Sharifi N, Farrokhian A, Raygan F, Karamali F, Razzaghi R, et al. A randomized controlled clinical trial investigating the effect of synbiotic administration on markers of insulin metabolism and lipid profiles in overweight type 2 diabetic patients with coronary heart disease. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 2017;125(01):21–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Firouzi S, Majid HA, Ismail A, Kamaruddin NA, Barakatun-Nisak M-Y. Effect of multi-strain probiotics (multi-strain microbial cell preparation) on glycemic control and other diabetes-related outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Nutr. 2017;56(4):1535–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Horvath A, Leber B, Feldbacher N, Tripolt N, Rainer F, Blesl A et al. Effects of a multispecies synbiotic on glucose metabolism, lipid marker, gut microbiome composition, gut permeability, and quality of life in diabesity: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study.European journal of nutrition. 2019:1–15.

  37. Hove K, Brøns C, Færch K, Lund S, Rossing P, Vaag A. Effects of 12 weeks of treatment with fermented milk on blood pressure, glucose metabolism and markers of cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study. Eur J Endocrinol. 2015;172(1):11–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Khalili L, Alipour B, Jafarabadi MA, Hassanalilou T, Abbasi MM, Faraji I. Probiotic assisted weight management as a main factor for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2019;11(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kobyliak N, Falalyeyeva T, Mykhalchyshyn G, Kyriienko D, Komissarenko I. Effect of alive probiotic on insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes patients: randomized clinical trial. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews. 2018;12(5):617–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kooshki A, Tofighian T, Akbarzadeh R. Effect of synbiotic supplementation on weight, body mass index and blood sugar in type II diabetic patients. J Res Health. 2017;7(2):771–6.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Madempudi RS, Ahire JJ, Neelamraju J, Tripathi A, Nanal S. Efficacy of UB0316, a multi-strain probiotic formulation in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a double blind, randomized, placebo controlled study. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(11):e0225168.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Mafi A, Namazi G, Soleimani A, Bahmani F, Aghadavod E, Asemi Z. Metabolic and genetic response to probiotics supplementation in patients with diabetic nephropathy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Food Funct. 2018;9(9):4763–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Miraghajani M, Zaghian N, Mirlohi M, Ghiasvand R. Probiotic soy milk consumption and renal function among type 2 diabetic patients with nephropathy: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins. 2019;11(1):124–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mobini R, Tremaroli V, Ståhlman M, Karlsson F, Levin M, Ljungberg M, et al. Metabolic effects of L actobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 in people with type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Obes Metabolism. 2017;19(4):579–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Mohamadshahi M, Veissi M, Haidari F, Shahbazian H, Kaydani G-A, Mohammadi F. Effects of probiotic yogurt consumption on inflammatory biomarkers in patients with type 2 diabetes. BioImpacts: BI. 2014;4(2):83.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Mohseni S, Bayani M, Bahmani F, Tajabadi-Ebrahimi M, Bayani MA, Jafari P, et al. The beneficial effects of probiotic administration on wound healing and metabolic status in patients with diabetic foot ulcer: a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Diab/Metab Res Rev. 2018;34(3):e2970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Naito E, Yoshida Y, Kunihiro S, Makino K, Kasahara K, Kounoshi Y et al. Effect of Lactobacillus casei strain Shirota-fermented milk on metabolic abnormalities in obese prediabetic Japanese men: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Bioscience of microbiota, food and health. 2017:17 – 012.

  48. Razmpoosh E, Javadi A, Ejtahed HS, Mirmiran P, Javadi M, Yousefinejad A. The effect of probiotic supplementation on glycemic control and lipid profile in patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomized placebo controlled trial. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research & Reviews. 2019;13(1):175–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Soleimani A, Mojarrad MZ, Bahmani F, Taghizadeh M, Ramezani M, Tajabadi-Ebrahimi M, et al. Probiotic supplementation in diabetic hemodialysis patients has beneficial metabolic effects. Kidney Int. 2017;91(2):435–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Tajadadi-Ebrahimi M, Bahmani F, Shakeri H, Hadaegh H, Hijijafari M, Abedi F, et al. Effects of daily consumption of synbiotic bread on insulin metabolism and serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein among diabetic patients: a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism. 2014;65(1):34–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Toshimitsu T, Gotou A, Sashihara T, Hachimura S, Shioya N, Suzuki S, et al. Effects of 12-week ingestion of yogurt containing Lactobacillus plantarum OLL2712 on glucose metabolism and chronic inflammation in prediabetic adults: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Nutrients. 2020;12(2):374.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Sabico S, Al-Mashharawi A, Al-Daghri NM, Yakout S, Alnaami AM, Alokail MS, et al. Effects of a multi-strain probiotic supplement for 12 weeks in circulating endotoxin levels and cardiometabolic profiles of medication naïve T2DM patients: a randomized clinical trial. J Transl Med. 2017;15(1):249.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Hosseinzadeh P, Javanbakht MH, Mostafavi S-A, Djalali M, Derakhshanian H, Hajianfar H, et al. Brewer’s yeast improves glycemic indices in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Int J Prev Med. 2013;4(10):1131.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Kassaian N, Feizi A, Aminorroaya A, Ebrahimi MT, Norouzi A, Amini M. Effects of probiotics and synbiotic on lipid profiles in adults at risk of type 2 diabetes: a double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial. Funct Foods Health Disease. 2019;9(7):494–507.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Sabico S, Al-Mashharawi A, Al-Daghri NM, Wani K, Amer OE, Hussain DS, et al. Effects of a 6-month multi-strain probiotics supplementation in endotoxemic, inflammatory and cardiometabolic status of T2DM patients: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Clin Nutr. 2019;38(4):1561–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Sato J, Kanazawa A, Azuma K, Ikeda F, Goto H, Komiya K, et al. Probiotic reduces bacterial translocation in type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomised controlled study. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. AbdelQadir YH, Hamdallah A, Sibaey EA, Hussein AS, Abdelaziz M, AbdelAzim A, et al. Efficacy of probiotic supplementation in patients with diabetic nephropathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Nutr ESPEN. 2020;40:57–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Liao D, Zhong C, Li C, Mo L, Liu Y. Meta-analysis of the effects of probiotic supplementation on glycemia, lipidic profiles, weight loss and C-reactive protein in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome. Minerva Med. 2018;109(6):479–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Perna S, Ilyas Z, Giacosa A, Gasparri C, Peroni G, Faliva MA, et al. Is probiotic supplementation useful for the management of body weight and other anthropometric measures in adults affected by overweight and obesity with metabolic related diseases? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Nutrients. 2021;13(2):666.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Hadi A, Arab A, Khalesi S, Rafie N, Kafeshani M, Kazemi M. Effects of probiotic supplementation on anthropometric and metabolic characteristics in adults with metabolic syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Clin Nutr. 2021;40(7):4662–73.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Koutnikova H, Genser B, Monteiro-Sepulveda M, Faurie J-M, Rizkalla S, Schrezenmeir J, et al. Impact of bacterial probiotics on obesity, diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease related variables: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ open. 2019;9(3):e017995.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Borgeraas H, Johnson L, Skattebu J, Hertel J, Hjelmesaeth J. Effects of probiotics on body weight, body mass index, fat mass and fat percentage in subjects with overweight or obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Obes Rev. 2018;19(2):219–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. John GK, Wang L, Nanavati J, Twose C, Singh R, Mullin G. Dietary alteration of the gut microbiome and its impact on weight and fat mass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Genes. 2018;9(3):167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Wang Z-B, Xin S-S, Ding L-N, Ding W-Y, Hou Y-L, Liu C-Q et al. The potential role of probiotics in controlling overweight/obesity and associated metabolic parameters in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine. 2019;2019.

  65. Jensen MD, Ryan DH, Apovian CM, Ard JD, Comuzzie AG, Donato KA et al. 2013 AHA/ACC/TOS guideline for the management of overweight and obesity in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and The Obesity Society.Journal of the American college of cardiology. 2014;63(25 Part B):2985–3023.

  66. Bock PM, Telo GH, Ramalho R, Sbaraini M, Leivas G, Martins AF, et al. The effect of probiotics, prebiotics or synbiotics on metabolic outcomes in individuals with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetologia. 2021;64(1):26–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Barathikannan K, Chelliah R, Rubab M, Daliri EB-M, Elahi F, Kim D-H, et al. Gut microbiome modulation based on probiotic application for anti-obesity: a review on efficacy and validation. Microorganisms. 2019;7(10):456.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Boulangé CL, Neves AL, Chilloux J, Nicholson JK, Dumas M-EJGm. Impact of the gut microbiota on inflammation, obesity, and metabolic disease. 2016;8(1):1–12.

  69. Dahiya DK, Puniya M, Shandilya UK, Dhewa T, Kumar N, Kumar S et al. Gut microbiota modulation and its relationship with obesity using prebiotic fibers and probiotics: a review. 2017;8:563.

  70. Wang Y, Jones PJ. Conjugated linoleic acid and obesity control: efficacy and mechanisms. Int J Obes. 2004;28(8):941–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Gérard PJC. sciences ml. Gut microbiota and obesity. 2016;73(1):147 – 62.

  72. Sarker M, Rahman M. Dietary fiber and obesity management–a review. Adv Obes Weight Manag Control. 2017;7(3):00199.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Iacovou M, Tan V, Muir JG, Gibson PRJJoN. Motility. The low FODMAP diet and its application in East and Southeast Asia. 2015;21(4):459.

  74. López-Moreno A, Suárez A, Avanzi C, Monteoliva-Sánchez M, Aguilera MJN. Probiotic strains and intervention total doses for modulating obesity-related microbiota dysbiosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. 2020;12(7):1921.

  75. Odamaki T, Kato K, Sugahara H, Hashikura N, Takahashi S, Xiao J-z, et al. Age-related changes in gut microbiota composition from newborn to centenarian: a cross-sectional study. BMC Microbiol. 2016;16(1):1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Del Chierico F, Abbatini F, Russo A, Quagliariello A, Reddel S, Capoccia D, et al. Gut microbiota markers in obese adolescent and adult patients: age-dependent differential patterns. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1210.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank the North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences for its financial support.


This work was funded by the North Khorasan University of Medical Sciences. The financial source had no role in the design of the study, described data management, analysis, reporting of study results, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Study design: SS, SA. Data extraction: SS, FM, FD, MA. Data analysis: SS, SA. Data interpretation: SS, SA MA. SS wrote the original draft of the manuscript. Manuscript review and editing: SS, SA, MA, ZSC. All authors reviewed the manuscript and provided final approval of the version to be published.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Soltani, S., Ashoori, M., Dehghani, F. et al. Effects of probiotic/synbiotic supplementation on body weight in patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized-controlled trials. BMC Endocr Disord 23, 86 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: