SynthesisBMC oral health2026
The oral bacterial microbiota change in oral squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 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.
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
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the compositional changes in the oral bacterial microbiota associated with oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) using next-generation sequencing (NGS) data.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251173644) and conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase up to October 25, 2025. Case-control studies comparing the oral bacterial microbiota of OSCC patients and healthy controls using NGS were included. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were independently performed by two reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the ROBINS-I tool. Standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using Stata software to compare the relative abundance of microbial taxa at both the phylum and genus levels. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic, and subgroup analyses were performed based on sample type.
resultsSixteen case-control studies with 1,608 participants (813 OSCC cases and 795 controls) were included. All studies were of moderate to high quality (NOS score ≥ 6). At the phylum level, the OSCC group showed a significantly lower abundance of Actinobacteria (SMD = -0.85, 95% CI: -1.36 to -0.35; P = 0.001) and a significantly higher abundance of Fusobacteria (SMD = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.90; P < 0.001) compared to controls. At the genus level, Fusobacterium, Capnocytophaga, Peptostreptococcus, Alloprevotella, Parvimonas, and Dialister were significantly enriched in the OSCC group. In contrast, Streptococcus, Haemophilus, Rothia, Veillonella, Actinomyces, and Leptotrichia were significantly depleted. Subgroup analysis revealed sample-specific microbial associations: while Fusobacterium was consistently enriched across all sample types, other taxa showed variations dependent on sampling methodology. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results, and no significant publication bias was detected.
conclusionThis meta-analysis identifies a distinct dysbiotic oral bacterial microbiota signature in OSCC, characterized by an enrichment of pro-inflammatory and pathogenic genera (e.g., Fusobacterium, Capnocytophaga) and a depletion of health-associated commensals (e.g., Streptococcus, Rothia). These findings provide strong evidence supporting specific microbial taxa as potential biomarkers for OSCC.
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.