Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31312608›Full record

ReviewBiotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2019

Metagenomics in ophthalmology: Hypothesis or real prospective?

Paola Gallon, Mohit Parekh, Stefano Ferrari, Adriano Fasolo, Diego Ponzin, Davide Borroni

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Paola GallonFondazione Banca degli Occhi del Veneto, Venice, Italy.
Mohit ParekhInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, UK.
Stefano FerrariFondazione Banca degli Occhi del Veneto, Venice, Italy.
Adriano FasoloFondazione Banca degli Occhi del Veneto, Venice, Italy.
Diego PonzinFondazione Banca degli Occhi del Veneto, Venice, Italy.
Davide BorroniDepartment of Doctoral Studies, Riga Stradins University, Riga, Latvia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metagenomic analysis was originally associated with the studies of genetic material from environmental samples. But, with the advent of the Human Microbiome Project, it has now been applied in clinical practices. The ocular surface (OS) is the most exposed part of the eye, colonized by several microbial communities (both, OS and environmental) that contribute to the maintenance of the physiological state. Limited knowledge has been acquired on these microbes due to the limitations of conventional diagnostic methods. Emerging fields of research are focusing on Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) technologies to obtain reliable information on the OS microbiome. Currently only pre-specified pathogens can be detected by conventional culture-based techniques or Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), but there are conditions to state whether metagenomics could revolutionize the diagnosis of ocular diseases. The aim of this review is to provide an updated overview of the studies involving NGS technology for OS microbiome.

Indexed as

MetagenomicsMicrobiomeNGS (next generation sequencing)Ocular infectionOcular surface

Identifiers

PMID31312608
PMCPMC6609782

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.