ArticleAnnals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials2021
Dysbiosis of urine microbiota in obstructive urinary retention patients revealed by next-generation sequencing.
Article in Annals of clinical microbiology and antimicrobials, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of coexisting type 2 diabetes mellitus on the urinary microbiota of kidney stone patients.PeerJ · 2024Article
- Unraveling the association of bacteria and urinary stones in patients with urolithiasis: an update review article.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Oxalate (dys)Metabolism: Person-to-Person Variability, Kidney and Cardiometabolic Toxicity.Genes · 2023Review
- Characterization of the urogenital microbiome in Miniature Schnauzers with and without calcium oxalate urolithiasis.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2022Article
- Microbial Biomarkers in Liquid Biopsy for Cancer: An Overview and Future Directions.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUrinary retention (UR) is a common urinary system disease can be caused by urinary tract obstruction with numerous reasons, however, the role of urine microbes in these disorders is still poorly understood. The aim of this study was to identify the urine microbial features of two common types of obstructive UR, caused by urinary stones or urinary tract tumors, with comparison to healthy controls.
methodsUrine samples were collected from a cohort of 32 individuals with stone UR, 25 subjects with tumor UR and 25 healthy controls. The urine microbiome of all samples was analyzed using high-throughput 16S rRNA (16S ribosomal RNA) gene sequencing.
resultsWe observed dramatically increased urine microbial richness and diversity in both obstructive UR groups compared to healthy controls. Despite different origins of UR, bacteria such as Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter and Sphingomonas were enriched, while Lactobacillus, Streptococcus, Gardnerella, Prevotella and Atopobium were decreased in both UR groups in comparison with healthy controls, exhibited an approximate urine microbial community and functional characteristics of two types of obstructive UR. Furthermore, disease classifiers were constructed using specific enriched genera in UR, which can distinguish stone UR or tumor UR patients from healthy controls with an accuracy of 92.29% and 97.96%, respectively.
conclusionWe presented comprehensive microbial landscapes of two common types of obstructive urinary retention and demonstrated that urine microbial features of these patients are significantly different from that of healthy people. The urine microbial signatures would shed light on the pathogenesis of these types of urinary retention and might be used as potential classification tools in the future.
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.