Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34046355›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021

Fecal

Xiaonan Shen, Jialu Li, Jiaqi Li, Yao Zhang, Xiaobo Li, Yun Cui, Qinyan Gao, Xiaoyu Chen, Yingxuan Chen, Jing-Yuan Fang

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Severe pneumonia with empyema caused byThe Journal of international medical research · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xiaonan ShenKey Laboratory of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ministry of Health, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Jialu LiKey Laboratory of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ministry of Health, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Jiaqi LiKey Laboratory of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ministry of Health, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Yao ZhangKey Laboratory of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ministry of Health, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Xiaobo LiKey Laboratory of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ministry of Health, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Yun CuiKey Laboratory of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ministry of Health, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Qinyan GaoKey Laboratory of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ministry of Health, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Xiaoyu ChenKey Laboratory of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ministry of Health, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Yingxuan ChenKey Laboratory of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ministry of Health, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Jing-Yuan FangKey Laboratory of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Ministry of Health, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Renji Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveUp to now, non-invasive diagnosis of laterally spreading tumor (LST) and prediction of adenoma recurrence after endoscopic resection of LSTs is inevitable. This study aimed to identify a microbial signature with clinical significance of diagnosing LSTs and predicting adenoma recurrence after LSTs colectomy.

methodsWe performed 16S rRNA sequencing in 24 mucosal samples, including 5 healthy controls (HC), 8 colorectal adenoma (CRA) patients, and 11 LST patients. The differentiating microbiota in fecal samples was quantified by qPCR in 475 cases with 113 HC, 208 CRA patients, 109 LST patients, and 45 colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. We identified differentially abundant taxa among cases and controls using linear discriminant analysis effect size analysis. ROC curve was used to evaluate diagnostic values of the bacterial candidates. Pairwise comparison of AUCs was performed by using the Delong's test. The Mantel-Haenszel hazard models were performed to determine the effects of microbial compositions on recurrence free survival.

resultsThe microbial dysbiosis of LST was characterized by relative high abundance of the genus Lactobacillus-Streptococcus and the species enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis (ETBF)-Peptostreptococcus stomatis (P. stomatis)-Parvimonas micra (P. micra). The abundance of ETBF, P. stomatis, and P. micra were steadily increasing in LST and CRC groups. P. stomatis behaved stronger value on diagnosing LST than the other two bacteria (AUC 0.887, 95% CI 0.842-0.931). The combination of P. stomatis, P. micra, and ETBF (AUC 0.922, 95% CI 0.887-0.958) revealed strongest diagnostic power with 88.7% sensitivity and 81.4% specificity. ETBF, P. stomatis, and P. micra were associated with malignant LST (P

conclusionsFecal microbiome signature (

Indexed as

diagnosis and prognosisenterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilislaterally spreading tumornoninvasive biomarkerParvimonas micraPeptostreptococcus stomatis

Identifiers

PMID34046355
PMCPMC8144651
OpenAlexW3160616021

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.