Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32973734›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2020

Assessment of Inter-Laboratory Variation in the Characterization and Analysis of the Mucosal Microbiota in Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis.

Jake C Szamosi, Jessica D Forbes, Julia K Copeland, Natalie C Knox, Shahrokh Shekarriz, Laura Rossi, Morag Graham, Christine Bonner, David S Guttman, Gary Van Domselaar and 2 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07169123 (Protease Regulation and Impact of Sodium as Mechanisms of Inflammation in IBD), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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.

NCT07169123 recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Protease Regulation and Impact of Sodium as Mechanisms of Inflammation in IBD

TypeobservationalSponsorMcMaster UniversityRan2025 to 2029Enrolled300ConditionsCrohns Disease
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jake C SzamosiDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Jessica D ForbesDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Julia K CopelandCentre for the Analysis of Genome Evolution and Function, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Natalie C KnoxNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Shahrokh ShekarrizDepartment of Biochemistry and Biomedical Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Laura RossiDepartment of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Morag GrahamNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Christine BonnerNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
David S GuttmanCentre for the Analysis of Genome Evolution and Function, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Gary Van DomselaarNational Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Michael G SuretteDepartment of Biochemistry and Biomedical Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Charles N BernsteinDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
McMaster University · CAUniversity of Manitoba · CAPublic Health Agency of Canada · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn studies evaluating the microbiome, numerous factors can contribute to technical variability. These factors include DNA extraction methodology, sequencing protocols, and data analysis strategies. We sought to evaluate the impact these factors have on the results obtained when the sequence data are independently generated and analyzed by different laboratories.

methodsTo evaluate the effect of technical variability, we used human intestinal biopsy samples resected from individuals diagnosed with an inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including Crohn's disease (

resultsThe

conclusionAlthough the contribution of DNA extraction and sequencing methods to variability were observable, we find that results can be robust to the various extraction and sequencing approaches used in our study. Differences in data processing methods have a larger impact on results, making comparison among studies less reliable and the combined analysis of bioinformatically processed samples nearly impossible. Our results highlight the importance of making raw sequence data available to facilitate combined and comparative analyses of published studies using common data processing protocols. Study methodologies should provide detailed data processing methods for validation, interpretability, reproducibility, and comparability.

Indexed as

16S rRNAinflammatory bowel diseasesintestinal biopsiesmicrobiomereplicabilitystandardstechnical variability

Identifiers

PMID32973734
PMCPMC7472644
OpenAlexW3080896668

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.