ArticleJournal of oral microbiology2022
Guideline for the analysis of the microbial communities of the human upper airways.
Article in Journal of oral microbiology, 2022. 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.
- Microbial signatures and host immune responses associated with the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia among patients with neurological injuries.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Benchmarking Cost-Effective DNA Extraction Kits for Diverse Metagenomic Samples.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Standardizing the approach to clinical-based human microbiome research: from clinical information collection to microbiome profiling and human resource utilization.Osong public health and research perspectives · 2025Article
- Benchmarking DNA isolation methods for marine metagenomics.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Microbial-enrichment method enables high-throughput metagenomic characterization from host-rich samples.Nature methods · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The recent COVID-19 pandemic prompted a rapid-growing interest in the investigation of the human microbiota of the upper airways. In fact, the resident microbial community of this body district may have an influence on the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its clinical course in terms of presence, symptom severity, and outcomes. However, several microbiological methodologies are available to study the human microbiota, reflecting the extensive fragmentation of methodological approaches. We investigate the impact of two critical steps that can induce biases in the downstream analyses, i.e. sampling method and microbial DNA extraction kit employed. We observed major discrepancies regarding the total amount of prokaryotic DNA that could be retrieved from a biological sample and the proportion between bacterial DNA and human host DNA. Moreover, shotgun DNA sequencing and taxonomic profile reconstruction also revealed correlations between sampling methods and the procedures applied for microbial DNA extraction. Based on all the data collected in this study, we formulate indications regarding the most efficient and reliable methodological procedures for the metagenomic analyses of the upper airways' microbiota to maximize accuracy and reproducibility.
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.