ReviewMicrobiome2021
Identifying biases and their potential solutions in human microbiome studies.
Review in Microbiome, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 127 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
127 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Prenatal Maternal Stress and Infant Gut Microbiome in Human and Animal Studies: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.Developmental psychobiology · 2026Pooled it
- Pancreatic microbiota composition and diversity in pancreatitis-associated infection: a systematic review with focus on infected pancreatic necrosis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Pooled it
- Current Methods in Synovial Fluid Microbiota Characterization: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Pooled it
- The impact ofFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- The effects of time-restricted eating and Ramadan fasting on gut microbiota composition: a systematic review of human and animal studies.Nutrition reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Meat Consumption and Gut Microbiota: a Scoping Review of Literature and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials in Adults.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Translational human gut microbiome research: What are the missing pieces of the puzzle?Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Analytical validation of a highly accurate and reliable next-generation sequencing-based urine assay.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Integrative analysis of placental metabolic reprogramming and microbiome alterations in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM).Acta diabetologica · 2026Review
- The gut as a central hub for multi-organ crosstalk in aging.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2026Review
- The human skin microbiome: factors affecting individuality and application in forensic investigations.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Review
- Advancing Plant Microbiome Research Through Host DNA Depletion Techniques.Plant biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- Gut microbiota and Parkinson's disease: exploring pathogenesis and potential therapeutic strategies from a gut-brain axis perspective.iScience · 2026Review
- Basic Microbiome Analysis: Analytical Steps from Sampling to Sequencing.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Comparison of Spatio-Temporal Dynamics and Composition in Size-Fractionated and Unfractionated Northwestern Atlantic Microbial Communities.Environmental microbiology reports · 2026Article
- A mathematical framework to correct for compositionality in microbiome data sets.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026Article
- Spatial and temporal patterns of public transit aerobiomes.Microbiome · 2026Article
- Planning and Analyzing a Low-Biomass Microbiome Study: A Data Analysis Perspective.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2026Review
- Personalized Nutrition Through the Gut Microbiome in Metabolic Syndrome and Related Comorbidities.Nutrients · 2026Review
67 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Advances in DNA sequencing technology have vastly improved the ability of researchers to explore the microbial inhabitants of the human body. Unfortunately, while these studies have uncovered the importance of these microbial communities to our health, they often do not result in similar findings. One possible reason for the disagreement in these results is due to the multitude of systemic biases that are introduced during sequence-based microbiome studies. These biases begin with sample collection and continue to be introduced throughout the entire experiment leading to an observed community that is significantly altered from the true underlying microbial composition. In this review, we will highlight the various steps in typical sequence-based human microbiome studies where significant bias can be introduced, and we will review the current efforts within the field that aim to reduce the impact of these biases. Video abstract.
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.