ArticleCommunications biology2026
Evaluating the analytical performance of direct-to-consumer gut microbiome testing services.
Article in Communications biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards standardized gut microbiota diagnostics: normobiosis beyond geographical borders.Gut microbes · 2026Article
- Maternal and infant gut microbiome.iMeta · 2026Review
- The urinary microbiome, overactive bladder and bladder pain syndrome/interstitial cystitis - mechanisms, diagnostics and therapeutic opportunities.Nature reviews. Urology · 2026Review
- Precision nutrition in Asian populations: a Multi-omics review of mechanisms, biomarkers, and implementation pathways.Journal of nutritional science · 2026Review
- GGut microbes · 2025Review
- International consensus statement on microbiome testing in clinical practice.The lancet. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025Review
- A standards perspective on genomic data reusability and reproducibility.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- GutMicrobiotAware: an international exploratory survey on awareness and understanding of the gut microbiota.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Microbiome testing in Europe: navigating analytical, ethical and regulatory challenges.Microbiome · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Consumer interest in personal microbiome health has given rise to numerous direct-to-consumer (DTC) microbiome testing services despite questions regarding their analytical and clinical validity, and consumer safety. These tests straddle the line between more strictly regulated medical devices and minimally regulated general health and wellness products; a distinction that may not be readily apparent to consumers. To assess the current state of the industry, we evaluated the performance of seven DTC gut microbiome testing services using a standardized NIST-developed human fecal material. Our results reveal major discrepancies, both within and across the different service providers. Significantly, we found variability between providers was on the same scale as biological variability between different donors. We attribute the observed differences to methodological variability and lack of sufficient quality control. Additionally, we highlight that analytical performance is a prerequisite for making sound clinical recommendations. Our results demonstrate the need for standards to ensure analytical validity and consumer confidence.
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.