ReviewiMeta2022
Standardized studies of the oral microbiome: From technology-driven to hypothesis-driven.
Review in iMeta, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- [The Impact of Oral Microecology on the Development of Inflammatory Bowel Disease].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2026Review
- Periodontal Ecosystem and Clinical Implications of the Oral Microbiome: A Narrative Review.International journal of dentistry · 2026Review
- From gut to mouth: salivary signatures of carcinogenic microbiota.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Pulpitis as a microbial disease: single-cell insights into host responses and diagnostic biomarkers for vital pulp therapy.Journal of oral microbiology · 2026Review
- Oral virome metagenomic catalog links Porphyromonas gingivalis phages to obesity and type 2 diabetes.Cell reports. Medicine · 2025Article
- Review
- OSaMPle workflow for salivary metaproteomics analysis reveals dysbiosis in inflammatory bowel disease patients.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2025Article
- The oral-gut microbiota axis: a link in cardiometabolic diseases.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2025Review
- Oral Microbiome Dysbiosis as a Risk Factor for Stroke: A Comprehensive Review.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- Microbiota of Saliva: A Non-invasive Diagnostic Tool.Indian journal of microbiology · 2024Review
- Oral nitrate-reducing bacteria as potential probiotics for blood pressure homeostasis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Review
- Metagenomics: An Effective Approach for Exploring Microbial Diversity and Functions.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Standardized studies of the oral microbiome: From technology-driven to hypothesis-driven.iMeta · 2022Review
- The sampling strategy of oral microbiome.iMeta · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The microbiome is in a symbiotic relationship with the host. Among the microbial consortia in the human body, that in the oral cavity is complex. Instead of repeatedly confirming biomarkers of oral and systemic diseases, recent studies have focused on a unified clinical diagnostic standard in microbiology that reduces the heterogeneity caused by individual discrepancies. Research has also been conducted on other topics of greater clinical importance, including bacterial pathogenesis, and the effects of drugs and treatments. In this review, we divide existing research into technology-driven and hypothesis-driven, according to whether there is a clear research hypothesis. This classification allows the demonstration of shifts in the direction of oral microbiology research. Based on the shifts, we suggested that establishing clear hypotheses may be the solution to major research challenges.
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.