A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Systematic Review: The Relationship Between the Faecal Microbiome and Colorectal Neoplasia in Shotgun Metagenomic Studies. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: The human gut microbiome is of academic and clinical interest. Associations between certain organisms and colorectal neoplasia have been reported, but findings have limited reproducibility in different populations.

Methods: We performed a systematic review of whole metagenome shotgun sequencing studies using faecal samples from patients with colorectal neoplasia and control populations. Searches were performed on 30th June 2023. We identified 26 studies, reporting on 22 study populations (13 from Asia, five from Europe and four from North America). Study size ranged from 14 to 971 individuals (mean 170).

Results: Some reproducible data were identified, such as the significant enrichment of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Parvimonas micra in colorectal cancer patients compared to controls (in 10 and nine studies, respectively). However, 21 out of 26 studies scored poorly on quality appraisal, specifically surrounding selection of cases and controls. Definitions of controls varied; some studies used individuals with normal endoscopic investigations, some used 'healthy' individuals where no colonoscopy was performed, and one used those with non-neoplastic findings (haemorrhoids). There was even less reproducibility of data in studies where individuals with colorectal polyps were compared to controls, possibly because of heterogeneity in these patient groupings as a variety of definitions for 'polyp cases' were used.

Conclusions: Heterogeneity and potential for bias indicates that findings should be interpreted with caution. Standardised protocols to ensure robust methodology and allow pooling of large-scale data are required before these findings can be used in clinical practice (PROSPERO: CRD42023431977).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12395896PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apt.70252DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

colorectal neoplasia
12
systematic review
8
compared controls
8
studies individuals
8
studies
7
colorectal
5
review relationship
4
relationship faecal
4
faecal microbiome
4
microbiome colorectal
4

Similar Publications