SynthesisFrontiers in microbiology2026
Impact of non-standardized reporting on reproducibility, usability, and integration in nasopharyngeal metagenomic research: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diet, the Gut Microbiome, and Mental Health: Mechanistic Perspectives.Molecular nutrition & food research · 2026Review
- DoReMiTra: an R/Bioconductor data package for orchestrating the analysis of radiation transcriptomic studies.Bioinformatics advances · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The nasopharyngeal microbiome plays a critical role in respiratory health and disease and is a major focus of metagenomic research. However, inconsistent reporting practices across studies limit reproducibility, dataset usability, and cross-study integration, thereby reducing the overall scientific value of publicly available nasopharyn. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the impact of non-standardized reporting on reproducibility, usability, and integration of nasopharyngeal metagenomic datasets. A total of 988 studies were screened, and 227 manuscripts met predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria for full-text review. Methodological reproducibility, metadata completeness, and compatibility between reported laboratory methods and deposited datasets were assessed. Reproducible datasets were further analyzed to evaluate the interchangeability of nasopharyngeal aspirates and nasopharyngeal swabs. Results: Only 78 studies (34%) contained methods sections sufficient for reproducibility, and of these, 33 studies (15%) provided analytically sufficient metadata to support secondary analysis. Mismatches between reported laboratory methods and deposited datasets were identified in 4% of studies. These deficiencies were primarily attributed to incomplete methodological reporting, inaccessible or insufficient metadata, and incompatible file formats. Comparative analysis of reproducible datasets demonstrated significant differences in microbial profiles between nasopharyngeal aspirates and nasopharyngeal swabs, confirming that these specimen types are not interchangeable within a study. Discussion: The findings demonstrate that inadequate reporting standards substantially impair the reproducibility, reuse, and integration of nasopharyngeal metagenomic data. The observed methodological and metadata inconsistencies limit the reliability of downstream analyses and cross-study comparisons. Standardized reporting guidelines are urgently needed to improve transparency, ensure reproducibility, and enhance the integrative potential of nasopharyngeal microbiome research. Adoption of comprehensive and consistent reporting practices would significantly strengthen the scientific rigor and utility of metagenomic studies in this field.
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.