Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31236270›Full record

ReviewJournal of animal science and biotechnology2019

The dark side of technological advances in analysis of microbial ecosystems.

Mick Bailey, Amy Thomas, Ore Francis, Christopher Stokes, Hauke Smidt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

5 authors.

Mick Bailey1Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol, BS40 5DU UK.
Amy Thomas1Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol, BS40 5DU UK.
Ore Francis1Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol, BS40 5DU UK.
Christopher Stokes1Bristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Langford House, Langford, Bristol, BS40 5DU UK.
Hauke Smidt2Laboratory of Microbiology, Wageningen University & Research, NL-6708 Wageningen, WE Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent technological advances mean that samples from animal experiments may be analysed more cheaply, more easily and with a much greater return of data than previously. Research groups are frequently faced with a choice of continuing to use established technology in which they may have made a significant investment of time and resources, and have significant amounts of reference data, or switching to new technology where reference data may be limited. Apart from cost, the choice needs to be based on a comparison between the increase in data available from future experiments by switching and the value of comparison with reference data from historical experiments analysed with earlier technology. One approach to this problem is to ensure that sufficient quantity and variety of samples are taken from each experiment and appropriately stored to allow re-establishment of a sufficiently large reference set and to avoid the need to repeat animal experiments. The establishment of 'biobanks' of experimental material will require funding for infrastructure, consistent storage of metadata and, importantly, horizon-scanning to ensure that samples are taken appropriately for techniques which will become accessible in future. Such biobanks are a recognised resource in human medicine, where the value of samples increases as more analysis is carried out and added to the metadata.

Indexed as

BiobankingExperimental designHorizon-scanningMicrobiomeReplacement, Reduction, RefinementTechnological advances

Identifiers

PMID31236270
PMCPMC6572749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.