ArticlePloS one2021
Metataxonomic investigation of the microbial community in the trachea and oropharynx of healthy controls and diabetic patients using endotracheal tubes.
Article in PloS one, 2021. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancement of soil microbial community stability by earthworms and collembolans in soil from abandoned coal mine lands.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Metagenomic whole genome shotgun analysis of the airway microbiome in laryngotracheal stenosis: a pilot study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Shared and Specific Lung Microbiota with Metabolic Profiles in Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid Between Infectious and Inflammatory Respiratory Diseases.Journal of inflammation research · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough the study of respiratory microbiota has been an active field of research, obtaining the appropriate respiratory samples for healthy controls remains to be a challenge. As such, this study aims to evaluate the use of endotracheal tube washing as a viable control for sputum samples.
methodsA total of 14 subjects, including 8 healthy respiratory controls and 6 diabetic patients without any respiratory disease, were enrolled in this study, during which the endotracheal tubes used in their scheduled routine surgery were collected. Pre-operative oral gargles were also collected from non-diabetic subjects.
results16S amplicon sequencing revealed similar taxa composition in endotracheal tube washings and oral gargles in the healthy control subjects, although the relative abundance of 11 genus level operational taxonomic units was significantly different between the two sample sources. The diabetic subjects showed relatively lower diversity than those of non-diabetic subjects. The proportion range of the most abundant taxa detected in each endotracheal tube washings were 10.1-33.2%.
conclusionEndotracheal tube washing fluid may provide healthy control samples for upper respiratory investigations without incurring any additional risk to the subject.
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.