ArticleMicrobiome2024
Microbiome testing in Europe: navigating analytical, ethical and regulatory challenges.
Article in Microbiome, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- STROBE-causal machine learning for the human microbiome: systematic review on methodological innovations and validation frameworks.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Pooled it
- Microbiome-Derived Metabolic Signaling in the Gut-Skin Axis: Implications for Nutricosmetics and Healthy Skin Aging.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Multidisciplinary Delphi consensus statement on minimal standards for clinical metadata and end points in microbiome studies.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Review
- Bridging Microbiota Science and Clinical Practice in Pediatric Healthcare: A National Survey.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
- Advances in Nanoparticle-Based Vitamin Delivery Systems for Precision Nutrition and Improved Bioavailability.AAPS PharmSciTech · 2026Review
- Informed Therapeutic Microbiome Modulation for Post-Infectious Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Pilot Experience of a Microbiome Clinic.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Integrating Microbiomes for Regenerative Food Systems: Recent Insights, Implementations, and Emerging Trends.Food science & nutrition · 2025Review
- Workplace-related environmental exposure and its potential influence on hair mineral and gut microbiota in cloned working dogs.The Journal of veterinary medical science · 2025Article
- Oncobiomics: Leveraging Microbiome Translational Research in Immuno-Oncology for Clinical-Practice Changes.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- The regulatory framework for microbiome-based therapies: insights into European regulatory developments.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2025Review
- A standards perspective on genomic data reusability and reproducibility.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome and polycystic ovaries: an intriguing conundrum.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
- Emerging technologies and current challenges in intratumoral microbiota research.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, human microbiome research has flourished and has drawn attention from both healthcare professionals and general consumers as the human microbiome is now recognized as having a significant influence on human health. This has led to the emergence of companies offering microbiome testing services. Some of these services are sold directly to the consumer via companies' websites or via medical laboratory websites. METHODOLOGY: In order to provide an overview of the consumer experience proposed by these microbiome testing services, one single faecal sample was sent to six different companies (five based in Europe and one based in the USA). Two out of the six testing kits were commercialized by medical laboratories, but without any requirement for a medical prescription. The analyses and reports received were discussed with a panel of experts (21 experts from 8 countries) during an online workshop.
resultsThis workshop led to the identification of several limitations and challenges related to these kits, including over-promising messages from the companies, a lack of transparency in the methodology used for the analysis and a lack of reliability of the results. The experts considered the interpretations and recommendations provided in the different reports to be premature due to the lack of robust scientific evidence and the analyses associated with the reports to be of limited clinical utility. The experts also discussed the grey areas surrounding the regulatory status of these test kits, including their positioning in the European market. The experts recommended a distinction between regulatory requirements based on the intended use or purpose of the kit: on the one hand, test kits developed to satisfy consumer curiosity, with a clear mention of this objective, and no mention of any disease or risk of disease, and on the other hand, in vitro diagnostic (IVD) CE-marked test kits, which could go deeper into the analysis and interpretation of samples, as such a report would be intended for trained healthcare professionals.
conclusionsRecommendations or actions, specific to the context of use of microbiome testing kits, are listed to improve the quality and the robustness of these test kits to meet expectations of end users (consumers, patients and healthcare professionals). The need for standardization, robust scientific evidence, qualification of microbiome-based biomarkers and a clear regulatory status in Europe are the main issues that will require attention in the near future to align laboratory development with societal needs and thus foster translation into daily health practice.
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.