Our meta-analysis focused exclusively on one type of a clearly defined, single-organism, probiotic microorganism, specifically LGG. Thus, it provides an answer to the question as to whether current evidence should change practice. Nevertheless, several limitations must be emphasized. First, our search depended on the studies identified via reviewing previously completed systematic reviews. However, as the results were consistent, we decided to rely on these searches. Available data were too limited to allow an examination as to whether the timing of probiotic administration matters (i.e., during pregnancy only, or during pregnancy and to infants, or to infants only), even if each timing was assessed separately. All trials were conducted in high-income countries, thus, the generalizability of these findings to less privileged settings remains unclear. Overall, the quality of studies was sound. Still, some methodological issues should be considered when interpreting the results. For example, the high attrition bias in the trial by Kalliomaki et al. [ 17 ] is one methodological limitation. However, this was unavoidable in a trial with a 7-year follow-up. Included trials used different definitions of eczema, and atopic eczema was assessed separately in only one trial [ 15 ] As the definitions of wheezing and asthma were often overlapping, these data were presented jointly. However, not all cases of early life wheezing will progress into asthma later on. Most children will eventually grow out of the symptoms and will never develop asthma [ 23 ]. Regardless, as some trials have indicated an increased risk of wheezing/asthma, more data are needed to evaluate this potentially harmful effect of using probiotics. This is important as a 2018 systematic review found that of nearly 400 RCT interventions aimed at modifying microbiota, only 6% adequately reported harms [ 24 ]. Consequently, the safety and potential harms of using probiotics, particularly very early in life and for a prolonged period, remains questionable. Trials included in our review did not report differences in adverse effects. However, only limited data were available.