Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38115015›Full record

ArticleGut pathogens2023

Gut microbiome dynamics and associations with mortality in critically ill patients.

Tarik J Salameh, Katharine Roth, Lisa Schultz, Zhexi Ma, Anthony S Bonavia, James R Broach, Bin Hu, Judie A Howrylak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gut pathogens, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Can We Identify Severe Dysbiosis at the Bedside?Critical care explorations · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. The gastrointestinal microbiome in critical illness: A Clinician's guide to mechanisms, emerging tools, and therapeutic questions.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2025
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

8 authors.

Tarik J SalamehDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Penn State, PA, 17033, USA.
Katharine RothLos Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, USA.
Lisa SchultzDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Penn State, PA, 17033, USA.
Zhexi MaDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Penn State, PA, 17033, USA.
Anthony S BonaviaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA.
James R BroachInstitute for Personalized Medicine, Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, 17033, USA.
Bin HuLos Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, USA.
Judie A HowrylakDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Penn State, PA, 17033, USA. jhowrylak@pennstatehealth.psu.edu.

Funding

Penn State Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR000127 · NCATS · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV HERSHEY MED CTR · PI SINOWAY, LAWRENCE I · 2012 to 2015
$17.1M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000127
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCritical illness and care within the intensive care unit (ICU) leads to profound changes in the composition of the gut microbiome. The impact of such changes on the patients and their subsequent disease course remains uncertain. We hypothesized that specific changes in the gut microbiome would be more harmful than others, leading to increased mortality in critically ill patients.

methodsThis was a prospective cohort study of critically ill adults in the ICU. We obtained rectal swabs from 52 patients and assessed the composition the gut microbiome using 16 S rRNA gene sequencing. We followed patients throughout their ICU course and evaluated their mortality rate at 28 days following admission to the ICU. We used selbal, a machine learning method, to identify the balance of microbial taxa most closely associated with 28-day mortality.

resultsWe found that a proportional ratio of four taxa could be used to distinguish patients with a higher risk of mortality from patients with a lower risk of mortality (p = .02). We named this binarized ratio our microbiome mortality index (MMI). Patients with a high MMI had a higher 28-day mortality compared to those with a low MMI (hazard ratio, 2.2, 95% confidence interval 1.1-4.3), and remained significant after adjustment for other ICU mortality predictors, including the presence of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score (hazard ratio, 2.5, 95% confidence interval 1.4-4.7). High mortality was driven by taxa from the Anaerococcus (genus) and Enterobacteriaceae (family), while lower mortality was driven by Parasutterella and Campylobacter (genera).

conclusionsDysbiosis in the gut of critically ill patients is an independent risk factor for increased mortality at 28 days after adjustment for clinically significant confounders. Gut dysbiosis may represent a potential therapeutic target for future ICU interventions.

Indexed as

Gut microbiomeICU mortalityPredictive modeling

Identifiers

PMID38115015
PMCPMC10731755

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.