Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34327149›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2021

Mutual Preservation: A Review of Interactions Between Cervicovaginal Mucus and Microbiota.

Stylianos Vagios, Caroline M Mitchell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Disrupted Cervicovaginal Microbiota: Its Role inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Engineered Tissue Models to Decode Host-Microbiota Interactions.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  12. Hallmarks of Bacterial Vaginosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Re-framing the importance of Group BInfection and immunity · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Stylianos VagiosDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Vincent Center for Reproductive Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital Research Institute, Boston, MA, United States.
Caroline M MitchellDepartment of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Vincent Center for Reproductive Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital Research Institute, Boston, MA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At mucosal surfaces throughout the body mucus and mucins regulate interactions between epithelia and both commensal and pathogenic bacteria. Although the microbes in the female genital tract have been linked to multiple reproductive health outcomes, the role of cervicovaginal mucus in regulating genital tract microbes is largely unexplored. Mucus-microbe interactions could support the predominance of specific bacterial species and, conversely, commensal bacteria can influence mucus properties and its influence on reproductive health. Herein, we discuss the current evidence for both synergistic and antagonistic interactions between cervicovaginal mucus and the female genital tract microbiome, and how an improved understanding of these relationships could significantly improve women's health.

Indexed as

Cervix UteriMicrobiotaMucusVaginaBacteriaFemaleHumansMicrobial InteractionsMucinsMucinscervicovaginal mucusfemale genital tractmicrobiomemucinsreproductive health

Identifiers

PMID34327149
PMCPMC8313892

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.