Trial reportFrontiers in immunology2025
A noteworthy issue: microbiome data variation depending on sampling methods in skin microecology studies in acne vulgaris patients.
Trial report in Frontiers in immunology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Skin microecology significantly affects health, with the microbiome being a complex community of microorganisms. Different niche preferences of microorganisms raise concerns about the adequacy of common sampling methods like swabbing and cyanoacrylate biopsy. In this study, we aim to contribute to a more suitable sampling strategy in acne microbiome studies. Methods: This study involved ten mild to moderate acne patients. Three sampling methods were used: swab sampling (S1), modified standardized skin surface biopsy (S2), and individual comedo extraction (S3). DNA was extracted and sequenced to analyze the microbiome data. Results: There were significant differences in the bacterial and fungal microbiome data obtained by the three different sampling methods. Conclusion: The choice of sampling method significantly impacts microbiome data, highlighting the need for accurate sampling to understand the relationship between the skin microbiome and acne. Standardizing sampling methods in future studies is essential for advancing skin microecology research. Clinical trial registration: http://www.chictr.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR-CPC-17012398.
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.