Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38913582›Full record

ArticleRenal failure2024

Dysbiosis and

Bai-Li Xiao, Xue-Qing Hu, Ming Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Renal failure, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

3 authors.

Bai-Li XiaoDepartment of Blood purification, The Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital of Qingdao University, Yantai, Shandong, China.
Xue-Qing HuDepartment of Blood purification, Qingdao Municipal Hospital, Qingdao, Shandong, China.
Ming LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Qilu Hospital, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHemodialysis patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are susceptible to infections and dysbiosis. Catheter-related infections are typically caused by opportunistic skin pathogens. This study aims to compare the skin microbiota changes around the exit site of tunneled cuffed catheters (peri-catheter group) and the contralateral site (control group).

methodsESRD patients on hemodialysis were recruited. The skin microbiota were collected with moist skin swabs and analyzed using high-throughput sequencing of the 16S rDNA V3-V4 region. After denoising, de-replication, and removal of chimeras, the reads were assigned to zero-radius operational taxonomic units (ZOTU).

resultsWe found significantly reduced alpha diversity in the peri-catheter group compared to the control group, as indicated by the Shannon, Jost, and equitability indexes, but not by the Chao1 or richness indexes. Beta diversity analysis revealed significant deviation of the peri-catheter microbiota from its corresponding control group. There was an overrepresentation of Firmicutes and an underrepresentation of Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, and Acidobacteria at the phylum level in the peri-catheter group. The most abundant ZOTU (

conclusionsIn conclusion, there was significant skin microbiota dysbiosis at the exit sites compared to the control sites in ESRD dialysis patients. Managing skin dysbiosis represents a promising target in the prevention of catheter-related bacterial infections.

Indexed as

DysbiosisKidney Failure, ChronicMicrobiotaRenal DialysisSkinStaphylococcusAdultAgedCatheter-Related InfectionsCentral Venous CathetersFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16SdysbiosisHemodialysismetagenomeskin microbiotatunneled cuffed catheters

Identifiers

PMID38913582
PMCPMC11198147

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.