Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31294154›Full record

ReviewAIMS microbiology2017

Microbiome in the urinary system-a review.

Jane Tang

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in AIMS microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Re-framing the importance of Group BInfection and immunity · 2024
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jane TangNational Security and Intelligence, Noblis, Reston, VA, USA.
Noblis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Urine was considered sterile in healthy individuals for many years, and the presence of bacteria signified urinary tract infection. With the development of Expanded Quantitative Urine Culture (EQUC) and utilization of molecular techniques, the previous clinical dogma is no longer valid. Instead, healthy people harbor a considerable microbial community, or microbiota, in their urinary systems. Similar to other physiological niches where microbiota contribute to the health status of their hosts, recent studies demonstrated different microbial populations also play a crucial role in urinary health of individuals. Understanding urinary microbiome thus allows a more holistic approach in the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of diseases and disorders in urinary system. This review article provides an overview of current findings in urinary microbiome and discusses some of the gaps for future research.

Indexed as

microbiomemicrobiotaurinary microbiomeurinary systemurinary tract infection

Identifiers

PMID31294154
PMCPMC6605016
OpenAlexW2602467217

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.