ReviewFrontiers in ophthalmology2025
Sequencing the ocular surface microbiome: a review of methodological practices and considerations.
Review in Frontiers in ophthalmology, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The human ocular surface microbiome (OSM) plays a vital role in ocular health, infection prevention, and immune modulation. However, use of sequencing technology for researching the OSM is challenged by low sample biomass, high sample variability, and methodological inconsistencies. This review systematically evaluates existing literature on OSM research, identifying methodological challenges and proposing standardization strategies to enhance data quality, comparability, and clinical relevance. Methods: A comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed studies was conducted to assess methodologies used in sequencing-based OSM research, with focus on considerations in scope: sample size, selection, choice of eye, time frame, recruitment and enrollment criteria; sample collection and handling: sampling environment, topical anesthesia, sample collection tools and ocular region; sample preservation: temperature and use of buffers; and sample analysis: DNA extraction, quantification, and sequencing approach. Advantages and limitations of different approaches were identified, and best practices for standardization were explored. Results: This review identified substantial variations in sample collection and processing methodologies, many of which are known to impact OSM composition. However, the influence of certain approaches remains unclear. Additionally, large reporting gaps were observed, as many studies failed to describe critical methodological elements, including specific sample handling procedures and sequencing parameters. Conclusions: While sequencing technologies offer valuable insights, our findings highlight the need for further investigation of different methodological approaches to determine best practices and establish standardized methodological protocols, as well as the need for standardized reporting protocols in OSM research. These standards are essential for enhancing data reliability and translating findings into clinical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.