ArticleGastroenterology research and practice2026
Comparison of Mucosal and Faecal Microbiomes in Patients With Cirrhosis.
Article in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2026. 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.
- Comparison of Mucosal and Faecal Microbiomes in Patients With Cirrhosis.Gastroenterology research and practice · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The colonic sigmoid mucosal microbiome is reportedly different from the faecal microbiome in patients with cirrhosis. This exploratory study is aimed at comparing the luminal and mucosal microbiome in patients with cirrhosis, with a specific focus on the proximal intestine. Methods: Mucosal and faecal samples were obtained from 12 patients with cirrhosis. The microbiome was quantified with V4 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Relative abundance, alpha and beta diversity were calculated, compared between the mucosal and faecal samples and correlated with stage of cirrhosis. Results: Faecal samples displayed lower microbial diversity than mucosal samples (Shannon diversity, p = 0.025) and the microbiome profiles differed significantly: Operational taxonomic units primarily of the phyla Firmicutes and Actinobacteria were more abundant in faecal samples, whereas biopsy samples contained units spanning all six phyla. Microbial composition of faecal samples were more similar to faecal samples from other patients rather than to the individual's corresponding biopsy sample (principal coordinate analysis, p = 0.004). At the family level, Lachnospiraceae, Erysipelotrichaceae and Enterobacteriaceae were significantly more abundant in faecal samples, whereas biopsy samples contained more Streptococcaceae (p = 0.011) and Prevotellaceae (p = 0.031). Faecal samples from patients in Child-Pugh Stage C contained less Bacteroidetes but significantly more Streptococcaceae than Stage B samples (p = 0.04); however, biopsy samples did not differ significantly. Conclusions: This exploratory study in a small sample of patients with cirrhosis observed significant differences in the microbial signature of faecal versus biopsy samples from the proximal intestine. Future studies are needed to further investigate the relationship between different gastrointestinal microbial sites and cirrhosis.
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.