ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2026
Methodological concerns in the association between gut microbiota and sarcopenia: from cross‑sectional associations to statistical fragility.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This commentary critically appraises the cross‑sectional study by Nasrollahizadeh et al. on gut microbiota and sarcopenia in Iranian older adults. Key limitations include; after FDR correction for twelve bacterial genera, no significant differences remained between groups; Akkermansia lost significance in sensitivity analyses; Lactobacillus showed a confidence interval including 1.00; four primer pairs lacked validation with no MIQE‑compliant efficiency data; the cross‑sectional design precludes causal inference; and no sample size justification was reported. The study offers valuable hypothesis‑generating data, but evidence remains preliminary. Future longitudinal studies with metagenomic approaches are essential.
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.