ReviewNature microbiology2025
STREAMS guidelines: standards for technical reporting in environmental and host-associated microbiome studies.
Review in Nature microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating multi-omics technologies to decipher microbiome functions.Nature communications · 2026Review
- Multidisciplinary Delphi consensus statement on minimal standards for clinical metadata and end points in microbiome studies.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Review
- Gut microbiota in health and disease.Molecular biomedicine · 2026Review
- Advancing FAIR data towards comparable, organized, predictive AI-ready data for community validation.Communications biology · 2026Review
- Review
- Celebrating 10 years of Nature Microbiology.Nature microbiology · 2026Article
- Goals in Nutrition Science 2025-2030.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- Beyond the Pancreas: The Gut Microbiota in Acute Pancreatitis - From Mechanisms to Therapeutic Perspectives.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
48 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The interdisciplinary nature of microbiome research, coupled with the generation of complex multi-omics data, makes knowledge sharing challenging. The Strengthening the Organization and Reporting of Microbiome Studies (STORMS) guidelines provide a checklist for the reporting of study information, experimental design and analytical methods within a scientific manuscript on human microbiome research. Here, in this Consensus Statement, we present the standards for technical reporting in environmental and host-associated microbiome studies (STREAMS) guidelines. The guidelines expand on STORMS and include 67 items to support the reporting and review of environmental (for example, terrestrial, aquatic, atmospheric and engineered), synthetic and non-human host-associated microbiome studies in a standardized and machine-actionable manner. Based on input from 248 researchers spanning 28 countries, we provide detailed guidance, including comparisons with STORMS, and case studies that demonstrate the usage of the STREAMS guidelines. STREAMS, like STORMS, will be a living community resource updated by the Consortium with consensus-building input of the broader community.
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.