Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25973666›Full record

ArticleAlimentary pharmacology & therapeutics2015

Deviations in human gut microbiota: a novel diagnostic test for determining dysbiosis in patients with IBS or IBD.

C Casén, H C Vebø, M Sekelja, F T Hegge, M K Karlsson, E Ciemniejewska, S Dzankovic, C Frøyland, R Nestestog, L Engstrand and 7 more

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 169 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
169citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

169 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

109 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

C CasénGenetic Analysis AS, Oslo, Norway.
H C VebøGenetic Analysis AS, Oslo, Norway.
M SekeljaGenetic Analysis AS, Oslo, Norway.
F T HeggeGenetic Analysis AS, Oslo, Norway.
M K KarlssonGenetic Analysis AS, Oslo, Norway.
E CiemniejewskaGenetic Analysis AS, Oslo, Norway.
S DzankovicGenetic Analysis AS, Oslo, Norway.
C FrøylandGenetic Analysis AS, Oslo, Norway.
R NestestogGenetic Analysis AS, Oslo, Norway.
L EngstrandKarolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
P MunkholmDepartment of Gastroenterology, Northzealand Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
O H NielsenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
G RoglerClinic for Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
M SimrénDepartment of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
L ÖhmanDepartment of Internal Medicine and Clinical Nutrition, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
M H VatnEpiGen Institute, Campus Ahus, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Lørenskog, Norway.
K RudiDepartment of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Aas, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDysbiosis is associated with many diseases, including irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), obesity and diabetes. Potential clinical impact of imbalance in the intestinal microbiota suggests need for new standardised diagnostic methods to facilitate microbiome profiling.

aimTo develop and validate a novel diagnostic test using faecal samples to profile the intestinal microbiota and identify and characterise dysbiosis.

methodsFifty-four DNA probes targeting ≥300 bacteria on different taxonomic levels were selected based on ability to distinguish between healthy controls and IBS patients in faecal samples. Overall, 165 healthy controls (normobiotic reference collection) were used to develop a dysbiosis model with a bacterial profile and Dysbiosis Index score output. The model algorithmically assesses faecal bacterial abundance and profile, and potential clinically relevant deviation in the microbiome from normobiosis. This model was tested in different samples from healthy volunteers and IBS and IBD patients (n = 330) to determine the ability to detect dysbiosis.

resultsValidation confirms dysbiosis was detected in 73% of IBS patients, 70% of treatment-naïve IBD patients and 80% of IBD patients in remission, vs. 16% of healthy individuals. Comparison of deep sequencing and the GA-map Dysbiosis Test, (Genetic Analysis AS, Oslo, Norway) illustrated good agreement in bacterial capture; the latter showing higher resolution by targeting pre-determined highly relevant bacteria.

conclusionsThe GA-map Dysbiosis Test identifies and characterises dysbiosis in IBS and IBD patients, and provides insight into a patient's intestinal microbiota. Evaluating microbiota as a diagnostic strategy may allow monitoring of prescribed treatment regimens and improvement in new therapeutic approaches.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeAdolescentAdultAgedBacteriaDiagnostic Tests, RoutineDysbiosisFecesFemaleHumansInflammatory Bowel DiseasesIrritable Bowel SyndromeMaleMiddle AgedNorwayYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID25973666
PMCPMC5029765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.