SynthesisAnnals of medicine2023
Gut microbiota changes in animal models of spinal cord injury: a preclinical systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Annals of medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Changes of potential shorty-chain fatty acids producing bacteria in the gut of patients with spinal cord injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- Changes in gut flora in patients with epilepsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Pooled it
- A new paradigm of bidirectional regulation of the gut-spinal cord axis.Neural regeneration research · 2026Article
- Decoding the ceRNA regulatory landscape: a comprehensive transcriptomic analysis of ncRNA-driven bladder fibrosis following spinal cord injury.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Gut-Brain Axis and Brain Microbiome Interactions from a Medical Perspective.Brain sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn increasing number of studies show that the intestinal flora is closely related to spinal cord injury. Many researchers are exploring the changes in the richness, diversity, and evenness of intestinal flora in spinal cord injury animal models to identify the characteristic bacteria.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using three databases: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. A meta-analysis was performed using R 4.3.1 to evaluate the comparison of microbiota diversity, richness, and evenness and the relative abundance of intestinal microbiota in animals with spinal cord injury and blank controls.
resultsFifteen studies were included in the meta-analysis, of which 12 involved gut microbiota distribution indicators and 11 included intestinal microflora relative abundance indicators. Meta-analysis of high-dimensional indicators describing the distribution of the gut microbiota identified a substantial decline in the evenness and richness of the intestinal flora. In addition, the Actinobacteria phylum and Erysipelotrichales and Clostridiales orders were significantly different between the spinal cord injury and sham groups; therefore, they may be the characteristic bacteria in spinal cord injury models.
conclusionOur meta-analysis suggested that the gut microbiota in the spinal cord injury animal model group was altered compared with that in the control group, with varying degrees of changes in richness and evenness and potentially pathogenic characteristic flora. More rigorous methodological studies are needed because of the high heterogeneity and limited sample size. Further research is needed to clinically apply intestinal microbiota and potentially guide fecal microbiota transplantation therapy.
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.