Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31944633›Full record

ReviewThe journal of pathology. Clinical research2020

Microbiome applications for pathology: challenges of low microbial biomass samples during diagnostic testing.

Caitlin A Selway, Raphael Eisenhofer, Laura S Weyrich

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The journal of pathology. Clinical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Microbial dysbiosis in cholangiocarcinoma.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Microbiota and urinary tumor immunity: Mechanisms, therapeutic implications, and future perspectives.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2024
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Caitlin A SelwayAustralian Centre for Ancient DNA, Department of Molecular and Biomedical Science, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4726-5527
Raphael EisenhoferAustralian Centre for Ancient DNA, Department of Molecular and Biomedical Science, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Laura S WeyrichAustralian Centre for Ancient DNA, Department of Molecular and Biomedical Science, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Centre for Cancer Biology · AUPennsylvania State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The human microbiome can play key roles in disease, and diagnostic testing will soon have the ability to examine these roles in the context of clinical applications. Currently, most diagnostic testing in pathology applications focuses on a small number of disease-causing microbes and dismisses the whole microbial community that causes or is modulated by disease. Microbiome modifications have already provided clinically relevant insights in gut and oral diseases, such as irritable bowel disease, but there are currently limitations when clinically examining microbiomes outside of these body sites. This is critical, as the majority of microbial samples used in pathology originate from body sites that contain low concentrations of microbial DNA, including skin, tissue, blood, and urine. These samples, also known as low microbial biomass samples, are difficult to examine without careful consideration and precautions to mitigate contamination and biases. Here, we present the limitations when analysing low microbial biomass samples using current protocols and techniques and highlight the advantages that microbiome testing can offer diagnostics in the future, if the proper precautions are implemented. Specifically, we discuss the sources of contamination and biases that may result in false assessments for these sample types. Finally, we provide recommendations to mitigate contamination and biases from low microbial biomass samples during diagnostic testing, which will be especially important to effectively diagnose and treat patients using microbiome analyses.

Indexed as

BiomassDiagnostic Tests, RoutineDNA, BacterialGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansMicrobiotaSequence Analysis, DNADNA, Bacterialclinical microbiologycontaminationdiagnostic testinglow biomassmicrobiomemicrobiotapathologypersonalised medicine

Identifiers

PMID31944633
PMCPMC7164373
OpenAlexW2998927706

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.