ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2026
Gut microbiota as modulators of obesity and overweight: a registry-based systematic review of clinical trial evidence.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Background: Obesity is a global epidemic that remains inadequately addressed by healthcare systems. The gut microbiota offers a promising metabolic target, yet systematic reviews of clinical trials on microbiome modulators for obesity are scarce. Methods: Using the Trialtrove database (September 16, 2025), we performed a registry-based systematic review with the strategy: "(Disease: Obesity) AND (Mechanism: Microbiome modulator)." We included interventional trials targeting overweight/obese populations with defined microbiome-modulating mechanisms; observational and withdrawn/suspended trials were excluded. Extracted data covered phase, status, intervention type, sponsor, location, and participant characteristics. Descriptive analyses used R software (v4.4.3). Results: Among 217 included trials, 131 (60%) were completed and 37 (17%) ongoing., Academic institutions led sponsorship (157 trials), followed by commercial (45) and government (14). Trials rose sharply after 2011, peaking at 34 in 2023 (over 80% of Phase IV trials that year). Probiotics dominated (141 trials), followed by synbiotics (21) and FMT (22). China (52) and the US (24) led research. Probiotics prevailed in Phases III/IV, whereas FMT concentrated in Phases II/IV with a higher termination rate. Conclusions: This study reveals a rapidly growing yet uneven landscape. Probiotics remain the primary focus, academic institutions the main sponsors, and China/US the core hubs. The field has entered a post-marketing evaluation phase dominated by Phase IV studies. Limitations include reliance on a single database and lack of efficacy data, but the study highlights rapid expansion and heterogeneity in this field. Future research should integrate multiple data sources and quality assessments for more comprehensive evidence.
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.