Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31448542›Full record

ReviewMicrobial biotechnology2020

Problems with the concept of gut microbiota dysbiosis.

Harald Brüssow

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microbial biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 137 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
137citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

137 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Review
  5. The gut microbiota in malnutrition.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Gut microbiota in health and disease.Molecular biomedicine · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. The hallmarks of host-microbiome decoupling.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

77 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

1 author.

Harald BrüssowLaboratory of Gene Technology, Department of Biosystems, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The human microbiome research is with the notable exception of fecal transplantation still mostly in a descriptive phase. Part of the difficulty for translating research into medical interventions is due to the large compositional complexity of the microbiome resulting in datasets that need sophisticated statistical methods for their analysis and do not lend to industrial applications. Another part of the difficulty might be due to logical flaws in terminology particularly concerning 'dysbiosis' that avoids circular conclusions and is based on sound ecological and evolutionary reasoning. Many case-control studies are underpowered necessitating more meta-analyses that sort out consistent from spurious dysbiosis-disease associations. We also need for the microbiome a transition from statistical associations to causal relationships with diseases that fulfil a set of modified Koch's postulates for commensals. Disturbingly, the most sophisticated statistical analyses explain only a small percentage of the variance in the microbiome. Microbe-microbe interactions irrelevant to the host and stochastic processes might play a greater role than anticipated. To satisfy the concept of Karl Popper about conjectures and refutations in the scientific process, we should also conduct more experiments that try to refute the role of the commensal gut microbiota for human health and disease.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeMicrobiotaDysbiosisFecal Microbiota TransplantationHumansSymbiosis

Identifiers

PMID31448542
PMCPMC7017827

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.