ArticleGut microbiome (Cambridge, England)2023
Risk of bias assessment tool for systematic review and meta-analysis of the gut microbiome.
Article in Gut microbiome (Cambridge, England), 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.
- The Gut Microbiota in Addiction Biology: A Systematic Review of Substance-Induced Dysbiosis and Gut-Brain Axis Alterations.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
- Pancreatic microbiota composition and diversity in pancreatitis-associated infection: a systematic review with focus on infected pancreatic necrosis.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Pooled it
- Identifying microbial biomarkers of neurodegeneration: a comparative study in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease.Frontiers in microbiomes · 2026Article
- Article
- Microbiome and its implications in oncogenesis: a Mendelian randomization perspective.American journal of cancer research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Risk of bias assessment is a critical step of any meta-analysis or systematic review. Given the low sample count of many microbiome studies, especially observational or cohort studies involving human subjects, many microbiome studies have low power. This increases the importance of performing meta-analysis and systematic review for microbiome research in order to enhance the relevance and applicability of microbiome results. This work proposes a method based on the ROBINS-I tool to systematically consider sources of bias in microbiome research seeking to perform meta-analysis or systematic review for microbiome studies.
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.