Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32047611›Full record

ReviewF1000Research2020

Recent advances in modulating the microbiome.

Eamonn M M Quigley, Prianka Gajula

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in F1000Research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. A synbiotic mixture ofFrontiers in nutrition · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Microbiota in health and diseases.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Journal of clinical medicine · 2022
    Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eamonn M M QuigleyLynda K and David M Underwood Center for Digestive Disorders, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4151-7180
Prianka GajulaDepartment of Medicine, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, 77030, USA.
Methodist Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We are in the midst of "the microbiome revolution"-not a day goes by without some new revelation on the potential role of the gut microbiome in some disease or disorder. From an ever-increasing recognition of the many roles of the gut microbiome in health and disease comes the expectation that its modulation could treat or prevent these very same diseases. A variety of interventions could, at least in theory, be employed to alter the composition or functional capacity of the microbiome, ranging from diet to fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). For some, such as antibiotics, prebiotics, and probiotics, an extensive, albeit far from consistent, literature already exists; for others, such as other dietary supplements and FMT, high-quality clinical studies are still relatively few in number. Not surprisingly, researchers have turned to the microbiome itself as a source for new entities that could be used therapeutically to manipulate the microbiome; for example, some probiotic strains currently in use were sourced from the gastrointestinal tract of healthy humans. From all of the extant studies of interventions targeted at the gut microbiome, a number of important themes have emerged. First, with relatively few exceptions, we are still a long way from a precise definition of the role of the gut microbiome in many of the diseases where a disturbed microbiome has been described-association does not prove causation. Second, while animal models can provide fascinating insights into microbiota-host interactions, they rarely recapitulate the complete human phenotype. Third, studies of several interventions have been difficult to interpret because of variations in study population, test product, and outcome measures, not to mention limitations in study design. The goal of microbiome modulation is a laudable one, but we need to define our targets, refine our interventions, and agree on outcomes.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDietFecal Microbiota TransplantationHumansPrebioticsProbioticsAnti-Bacterial AgentsPrebioticsantibioticdietfecal microbiota transplantationmicrobiomemicrobiotapharmabioticprebioticprobiotic

Identifiers

PMID32047611
PMCPMC6993818
OpenAlexW3001603316

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.