ReviewJournal of biological methods2025
Advancements in analytical methods for studying the human gut microbiome.
Review in Journal of biological methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antimicrobial coated intracortical probes reduce invading microbe abundance and subsequent neuroinflammation.Biomaterials · 2026Article
- Bacterial vaginosis in microscopic examination of Pap smears in patients with high-risk HPV is associated with viral persistence and cytological progression in a longitudinal study.Infectious agents and cancer · 2026Article
- Advances in microbial extracellular vesicles: synthetic biology platforms and medical applications.Extracellular vesicles and circulating nucleic acids · 2026Review
- Gut microbiota and ankylosing spondylitis: current insights and future challenges.Microbial cell (Graz, Austria) · 2025Review
- Gut mycobiome in cardiometabolic disease progression: current evidence and future directions.Frontiers in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The human gut microbiome, a complex ecosystem of microorganisms, plays a crucial role in maintaining human health. Perturbations in its composition are linked to a wide range of health conditions. Analytical techniques: Researchers employ various techniques to study the gut microbiome, each having its own strengths and limitations. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is highly sensitive but dependent on the quality of DNA extraction. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is powerful but can be costly and requires extensive data analysis. Furthermore, the accuracy of NGS results also depends heavily on the quality of the DNA extraction process. Culture methods, while useful, are biased and time-consuming. Fluorescence Conclusion: Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of these methods is essential for drawing robust conclusions in microbiome research.
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.