Trial reportMolecular medicine reports2020
Microecological investigation and comparison of two clinical methods to evaluate axillary osmidrosis.
Trial report in Molecular medicine reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying the key role of mitochondrial respiration and lipid metabolism in regulating axillary osmidrosis through proteomics analysis.Archives of dermatological research · 2024Article
- Interplay of human ABCC11 transporter gene variants with axillary skin microbiome functional genomics.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Research progress on the relationship between Paneth cells-susceptibility genes, intestinal microecology and inflammatory bowel disease.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Review
- Treatment of Axillary Osmidrosis by Rebalancing Skin Microecology WithFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Axillary osmidrosis (AO) is a common disease that causes patients to develop malodor and occurs worldwide. There is a lack of uniform standards to evaluate the severity of the odor and identify a sensitive and convenient method to determine the therapeutic effect of AO treatments in a clinical setting. In the present study, the association between pH value and disease severity was investigated and the potential pathogenic bacteria and probiotic pathogens of AO were further examined. A total of 32 patients with bilateral AO and 32 normal healthy controls were recruited for the present study. The odor was investigated using the traditional method (TM) and our groups newly developed Lu swab method (LSM) and according to the results, the cases were assigned a score on a 4‑point scale. The patients' scores and pH value were recorded. The microbiological compositions of the affected sites were determined using 16S rDNA sequencing. The mean LSM score was higher compared with the mean TM score (P<0.05). Furthermore, the mean axillary pH value was higher in patients with AO compared with that in healthy subjects (P<0.0001), and the mean pH value of patients with high disease severity was higher compared with that in patients with moderate disease severity (P<0.001). In the microecological flora, the proportion of Staphylococcus species on patients with AO was significantly lower compared with that on normal controls (P<0.0001), while the proportion of Corynebacterium and Anaerococcus was significantly higher compared with that on normal controls (P<0.01 and P<0.001, respectively). In conclusion, LSM provided a higher sensitivity for evaluating odor severity than the TM and may be suitable for use in a clinical setting. The pH value was positively associated with AO severity. Staphylococcus may be an appropriate probiotic for the treatment of AO, while Corynebacterium and Anaerococcus may be causative pathogens of AO. The present study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration no. ChiCTR2000037275).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.