← Issue №5/ week of Aug 2, 2026/ the whole section, in full

Colorectal, in full.

All 9 Colorectal papers in this issue, as full cards, ranked by clinical utility. The issue page carries the strongest few; this is the section, whole.

Sections this issue
Filter

All 9, in full

most clinically useful first · the 1 the issue led with is ruled in green
Colorectal meta analysis · Jul 30, 2026 · J Gastroenterology · IF 5.7

Clinical applications of gut microbiome for non-invasive diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.

Diagnosticmicrobiomebiomarkercolorectal cancercolorectal cancer screening
Clinical takeawayMicrobiome-based stool testing shows promise for improving adenoma detection in CRC screening, particularly for early-stage lesions missed by FIT alone. However, further validation and integration into screening programs are needed before clinical adoption.
What it foundA microbial panel (Fusobacterium nucleatum, Hungatella hathewayi, Christensenella hongkongensis, and m3 gene) demonstrated improved sensitivity for adenoma detection compared to FIT alone, with comparable accuracy for CRC.
ContextCurrent stool-based tests like FIT have limited sensitivity for adenoma detection. This study confirms microbial signatures as viable biomarkers and highlights their potential to enhance early CRC screening.
Measured against the standard of care· USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin)

Decision at stakethe potential use of gut microbiome biomarkers for non-invasive colorectal cancer screening

… Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. … The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. Screening at 45-49 is a weaker recommendation than at 50-75. Colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT are the Tier 1 cornerstones. Tier 2 alternatives are multi-target stool DNA every 3 years, CT colonography every 5 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5-10 years. Capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is Tier 3. Any abnormal non-colonoscopy test requires a diagnostic colonoscopy, and a stool test should not be offered to a patient who would decline follow-up colonoscopy. Patients who are up to date with negative prior screening, particularly a high-quality colonoscopy, may consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy is under 10 years. Decisions at 76-85 are individualized by health and prior screening, and screening after 85 is not recommended. The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. It adds the next-generation mt-sDNA test and the multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense), both every 3 years, and it adds an FDA-approved blood-based cfDNA test (Shield) only for people who decline or do not complete visual or stool screening. ACS says a positive stool or blood test should be followed by colonoscopy, preferably within 6 months. The 2026 ASGE paper on follow-up after an abnormal stool test is an implementation review (navigation, tracking, direct-access colonoscopy), not a new screening guideline.

USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Cui C … Chan FKL · Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 5.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal retrospective · n=289 · Jul 30, 2026 · BMC Gastro · IF 2.5

Characteristics of small early colorectal cancer in the non-pedunculated lesions and its relationship with the depth of invasion.

New evidencecolorectal cancerepidemiology
Clinical takeawayDuring colonoscopy, consider endoscopic resection (ESD) for non-pedunculated lesions <2 cm with surface fullness, dilated peripheral vessels, JNET2B/3 morphology (JNET2B: irregular surface and/or irregular vessels; JNET3: markedly irregular surface and/or vessels), or de novo carcinoma features due to high deep invasion risk. This applies particularly to patients with a mean age of 63 years and a male predominance (60.9%).
What it foundSurface fullness (OR=13.81), dilated blood vessels in tumor periphery (OR=6.44), JNET2B (OR=6.43), JNET3 (OR=22.94), and de novo carcinoma pathway (OR=21.61) independently predicted deep submucosal invasion in small (<2 cm) non-pedunculated early CRC compared to standard endoscopic assessment.
ContextChallenges the assumption that small CRC size alone predicts lower aggressiveness; provides specific endoscopic features (including JNET classification specifics) to stratify invasion risk in sub-2 cm lesions. The study is retrospective and lacks data on adverse events or limitations of ESD in this context.
Measured against the standard of care· USMSTF 2020 (Gupta et al., post-polypectomy surveillance) / USMSTF 2026 (Rex et al., Serrated Polyposis Syndrome consensus statement)

Decision at stakedetermining the risk of deep submucosal invasion in non-pedunculated colorectal lesions <2 cm

… Resect SSLs and hyperplastic polyps by cold snare, with submucosal injection for larger lesions. … First-degree relatives start colonoscopy at age 40, or 10 years before the youngest CRC diagnosis in the family, or 5 years before the youngest SPS diagnosis, whichever comes first. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

General post-polypectomy surveillance still follows USMSTF 2020 (Gupta et al.), which has not been replaced: 1-2 tubular adenomas <10 mm, 7-10 years; 3-4 tubular adenomas <10 mm, 3-5 years; 5-10 tubular adenomas <10 mm, any adenoma ≥10 mm, or an adenoma with tubulovillous/villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, 3 years; >10 adenomas, 1 year with polyposis evaluation. For serrated polyps: 1-2 SSLs <10 mm, 5-10 years; 3-4 SSLs <10 mm or a hyperplastic polyp ≥10 mm, 3-5 years; an SSL ≥10 mm, an SSL with dysplasia, or a traditional serrated adenoma, 3 years. When findings are mixed, use the shortest interval indicated. Before applying an interval, confirm complete resection and adequate prep. Piecemeal resections get a site check, and malignant (T1) polyps go to a tumor-board pathway. Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is now governed by a separate USMSTF consensus statement (Rex et al., published simultaneously in Gastroenterology, Am J Gastroenterol and GIE on 2026-09-30). It has 11 recommendations. Diagnose SPS with the 2019 WHO criteria, which count the size, cumulative lifetime number and location of serrated polyps. Until SPS is diagnosed, record the number, size and location of serrated polyps in every colonoscopy report. SPS colonoscopy should be done by endoscopists with documented adequate SSL detection, using high-definition white light with or without chromoendoscopy. Without concurrent CRC, endoscopy is preferred over surgery for primary management. If the polyp burden cannot be managed endoscopically, refer to an advanced endoscopic resection expert before surgery. Resect SSLs and hyperplastic polyps by cold snare, with submucosal injection for larger lesions. Do clearance colonoscopy at 3-6 months, then surveil every 1-2 years. Consider 3-year intervals if the burden is greatly reduced at surveillance. First-degree relatives start colonoscopy at age 40, or 10 years before the youngest CRC diagnosis in the family, or 5 years before the youngest SPS diagnosis, whichever comes first. SPS has no established genetic basis, so germline testing is recommended only when concurrent non-serrated polyps suggest a heritable syndrome. Lynch, FAP/AFAP and MAP criteria still trigger genetic evaluation.

USMSTF 2020 (Gupta et al., post-polypectomy surveillance) / USMSTF 2026 (Rex et al., Serrated Polyposis Syndrome consensus statement) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Li YB … Yin XY · BMC Gastroenterology · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal prospective cohort · n=47 · Aug 1, 2026 · Colorectal Disease · IF 3.2

Cost-effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes of combined versus isolated robotic rectal and pelvic organ prolapse repair: A multicentre prospective cohort study.

New evidencecost-effectivenesscolorectal surgeryhealth services
Clinical takeawayFor women with symptomatic multicompartment prolapse (both rectal and pelvic organ), consider combined robotic repair due to superior symptom improvement and cost-effectiveness over staged procedures.
What it foundCombined robotic rectal and pelvic organ prolapse repair (rRP + rPOP) showed greater improvement in bowel, bladder, and prolapse-related symptoms than isolated robotic repairs (rRP or rPOP alone) at 12 months.
ContextHighlights the potential benefits of a combined approach for multicompartment prolapse, aligning with the need for multidisciplinary surgical planning.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· World Journal of Gastroenterology, "Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome: clinical features, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment strategies", 2014

Decision at stakethe decision to perform surgical rectopexy for rectal prolapse

Manage solitary rectal ulcer syndrome primarily with behavioral measures: stop straining, biofeedback/pelvic floor physical therapy for dyssynergic defecation, bulk fiber (psyllium) plus osmotic laxatives, and sucralfate enemas, with topical 5-ASA as a limited-evidence adjunct. Confirm the diagnosis with endoscopy plus mandatory biopsy to exclude malignancy; use anorectal manometry and defecography selectively, not routinely in every patient, to identify dyssynergia and intussusception and guide therapy. Reserve surgical rectopexy for documented internal/external rectal prolapse that has failed conservative therapy, and treat coexistent psychological factors.

World Journal of Gastroenterology, "Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome: clinical features, pathophysiology, diagnosis and treatment strategies", 2014 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Wallace SL … Gurland BH · Colorectal Disease : the Official Journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · IF 3.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal retrospective · n=68 · Aug 1, 2026 · Colorectal Disease · IF 3.2

A simple MRI/PET-derived index predicts relapse-free survival after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer.

Diagnosticbiomarkercolorectal cancerartificial intelligence
Clinical takeawayConsider using the T/S ratio (tumor area/SUVmax) from pretreatment MRI/PET-CT to stratify risk and guide individualized neoadjuvant strategies in locally advanced rectal cancer.
What it foundPatients with a high T/S ratio (cut-off 55.81) had significantly poorer 3-year relapse-free survival (51.8% vs. 84.0%, p = 0.002).
ContextThis study introduces a novel imaging biomarker that refines risk stratification in locally advanced rectal cancer, addressing a gap in pretreatment prognostic tools.
Measured against the standard of care· USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin)

Decision at stakepredicting response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. Screening at 45-49 is a weaker recommendation than at 50-75. Colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT are the Tier 1 cornerstones. Tier 2 alternatives are multi-target stool DNA every 3 years, CT colonography every 5 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5-10 years. Capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is Tier 3. Any abnormal non-colonoscopy test requires a diagnostic colonoscopy, and a stool test should not be offered to a patient who would decline follow-up colonoscopy. Patients who are up to date with negative prior screening, particularly a high-quality colonoscopy, may consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy is under 10 years. Decisions at 76-85 are individualized by health and prior screening, and screening after 85 is not recommended. The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. It adds the next-generation mt-sDNA test and the multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense), both every 3 years, and it adds an FDA-approved blood-based cfDNA test (Shield) only for people who decline or do not complete visual or stool screening. ACS says a positive stool or blood test should be followed by colonoscopy, preferably within 6 months. The 2026 ASGE paper on follow-up after an abnormal stool test is an implementation review (navigation, tracking, direct-access colonoscopy), not a new screening guideline.

USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Shioi I … Saeki H · Colorectal Disease : the Official Journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · IF 3.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal review · Jul 31, 2026 · Nat Rev Gastro Hep · IF 57.5

Mechanisms, management and prevention of anorectal sexually transmitted infections.

New evidenceepidemiologyartificial intelligencebiomarkerbasic science
Clinical takeawayConsider routine anorectal STI screening in MSM, even if asymptomatic, given high prevalence and silent persistence. For prevention, discuss doxycycline PEP (reduces chlamydia/syphilis incidence) where appropriate, acknowledging practical implementation challenges in diverse clinical settings.
What it foundAnorectal STIs (chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis) are often asymptomatic, particularly among men who have sex with men (MSM), with prevalence exceeding urogenital infections.
ContextConfirms the need for proactive screening in high-risk groups, despite existing molecular diagnostics, due to asymptomatic carriage and rising incidence globally.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· CDC (Workowski KA, Bachmann LH, Chan PA, et al.), Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021, Proctitis, Proctocolitis, and Enteritis; MMWR Recommendations and Reports 2021;70(RR-4):1-187

Decision at stakeempiric treatment for acute proctitis in patients with receptive anal exposure

… Give empiric ceftriaxone 500 mg IM once plus doxycycline 100 mg BID for 7 days presumptively while awaiting results, started whenever the presentation is consistent with acute proctitis (anorectal exudate on exam or polymorphonuclear leukocytes on a Gram-stained anorectal smear, or, if anoscopy/Gram stain is unavailable, in a patient reporting receptive anal exposure) rather than only once symptoms are "moderate-severe", then tailor therapy by pathogen (extend doxycycline to the full 21-day course presumptively for LGV when bloody discharge, perianal or mucosal ulcers, or tenesmus accompany a positive rectal chlamydia NAAT, rather than waiting for confirmed LGV; penicillin G benzathine for syphilis, antivirals for HSV). …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

In a patient with proctitis symptoms and receptive anal sex history, test with rectal NAAT for gonorrhea and chlamydia (LGV testing if positive), syphilis serology, HSV PCR from ulcers, stool studies for enteric pathogens in proctocolitis, plus HIV and hepatitis testing. Give empiric ceftriaxone 500 mg IM once plus doxycycline 100 mg BID for 7 days presumptively while awaiting results, started whenever the presentation is consistent with acute proctitis (anorectal exudate on exam or polymorphonuclear leukocytes on a Gram-stained anorectal smear, or, if anoscopy/Gram stain is unavailable, in a patient reporting receptive anal exposure) rather than only once symptoms are "moderate-severe", then tailor therapy by pathogen (extend doxycycline to the full 21-day course presumptively for LGV when bloody discharge, perianal or mucosal ulcers, or tenesmus accompany a positive rectal chlamydia NAAT, rather than waiting for confirmed LGV; penicillin G benzathine for syphilis, antivirals for HSV). Include partner notification and treatment, sexual health counseling, and repeat STI testing at 3 months.

CDC (Workowski KA, Bachmann LH, Chan PA, et al.), Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021, Proctitis, Proctocolitis, and Enteritis; MMWR Recommendations and Reports 2021;70(RR-4):1-187 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Latt PM … Chow EPF · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · IF 57.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal retrospective · n=430 · Aug 4, 2026 · Dis Colon Rectum · IF 3.5

Nonoperative Management in Patients With Early-Onset Rectal Adenocarcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

New evidencerectal cancer
Clinical takeawayConsider nonoperative management and active surveillance for early-onset rectal cancer patients (<50) who achieve complete response to neoadjuvant therapy, as oncological outcomes are comparable to or better than those in older age groups.
What it foundEarly-onset rectal cancer patients (<50) had a 3-year local regrowth rate of 23.8% (95% CI: 15.2-32.4), similar to middle-aged (33.0%) and late-onset (26.1%) groups (p=0.395), and superior disease-specific survival compared to late-onset patients.
ContextConfirms that nonoperative management is safe and effective in early-onset rectal cancer, aligning with current practice for older patients, and suggests potential survival benefits in younger patients.
Measured against the standard of care· USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin)

Decision at stakewhether to consider nonoperative management for early-onset rectal cancer patients

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. Screening at 45-49 is a weaker recommendation than at 50-75. Colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT are the Tier 1 cornerstones. Tier 2 alternatives are multi-target stool DNA every 3 years, CT colonography every 5 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5-10 years. Capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is Tier 3. Any abnormal non-colonoscopy test requires a diagnostic colonoscopy, and a stool test should not be offered to a patient who would decline follow-up colonoscopy. Patients who are up to date with negative prior screening, particularly a high-quality colonoscopy, may consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy is under 10 years. Decisions at 76-85 are individualized by health and prior screening, and screening after 85 is not recommended. The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. It adds the next-generation mt-sDNA test and the multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense), both every 3 years, and it adds an FDA-approved blood-based cfDNA test (Shield) only for people who decline or do not complete visual or stool screening. ACS says a positive stool or blood test should be followed by colonoscopy, preferably within 6 months. The 2026 ASGE paper on follow-up after an abnormal stool test is an implementation review (navigation, tracking, direct-access colonoscopy), not a new screening guideline.

USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Rosen RY … Smith JJ · Diseases of the Colon and Rectum · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal rct · n=455 · Aug 3, 2026 · JAMA · IF 63.1

Addition of High-Dose Vitamin D3 to Standard Treatment in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The SOLARIS Randomized Clinical Trial (Alliance A021703).

New evidencecolorectal cancerbasic sciencebiomarker
Clinical takeawayNo clinical action: high-dose vitamin D3 is not superior to standard-dose in mCRC treatment.
What it foundHigh-dose vitamin D3 (8000 IU loading then 4000 IU daily) did not improve PFS (11.8 vs 10.3 months) or OS (25.6 vs 27.0 months) compared to standard-dose vitamin D3 (400 IU daily) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving chemotherapy. There were no significant differences in adverse events between the two doses.
ContextChallenges prior phase 2 data suggesting benefit of high-dose vitamin D3 in mCRC; confirms standard-dose remains appropriate.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Ng K … Meyerhardt JA · JAMA · IF 63.1 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal prospective cohort · n=50 · Aug 1, 2026 · Colorectal Disease · IF 3.2

Bridge-to-surgery in acute right-sided obstructing colon cancer: A survey of surgeons' perspectives on treatment strategies.

Epidemiologycolorectal cancercolorectal surgeryhealth servicesguideline
Clinical takeawayNo clinical action yet: a survey of surgeon preferences, not evidence on outcomes. Consider discussing bridge-to-surgery options (e.g., decompression, stoma) with surgical colleagues for right-sided obstruction, but await guideline development.
What it foundEmergency resection was the sole treatment option for right-sided obstructing colon cancer in 4% of respondents, while 64% performed emergency resections alongside other strategies. The majority preferred bridge-to-surgery strategies, with bowel decompression with nasogastric tube (38%) and ileostomy (38%) being most favored. Endoscopic stenting was not offered in 90% due to lack of trained endoscopists.
ContextChallenges the assumption of uniform emergency resection for right-sided obstruction, revealing variability in practice and a preference for bridge-to-surgery strategies where feasible.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· Society of Critical Care Medicine / European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2026", 2026

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Triage suspected perforation with immediate IV access (2 large-bore IVs) and assessment of perfusion in parallel with diagnostics; obtain upright CXR and CT abdomen/pelvis (most sensitive/specific) plus labs and lactate, and start empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics. Fluid therapy is stratified by perfusion status, not given as a fixed protocol for all comers: in adults with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion or septic shock, give at least 30 mL/kg IV crystalloid within the first 3 hours (Surviving Sepsis Campaign 2026; conditional recommendation, low-certainty evidence), selecting the initial volume by individual patient characteristics and context (use adjusted or ideal body weight if BMI >30 kg/m²) with frequent, ongoing reassessment to avoid under- or over-resuscitation, alongside sepsis care: blood cultures as soon as possible and ideally before antimicrobials, lactate with serial measurement to guide resuscitation, and vasopressors if hypotension persists despite fluids. In patients without sepsis-induced hypoperfusion or shock, do not give protocolized volume resuscitation; use maintenance fluids or small individualized boluses guided by hemodynamic reassessment, and in fluid-sensitive patients (e.g., heart failure, end-stage renal disease) use smaller individualized boluses with close reassessment rather than a fixed weight-based volume. Obtain mandatory emergency surgical consultation for any confirmed perforation, hard peritoneal signs, free air, or hemodynamic instability, proceeding to exploratory laparotomy/laparoscopy or cause-specific surgery (Graham patch, Hartmann, colectomy). Selected contained post-procedural perforations that are small, clip-amenable, and hemodynamically stable may be managed conservatively with ICU monitoring, NPO, antibiotics, and serial imaging.

Society of Critical Care Medicine / European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock 2026", 2026 · reviewed 2026-07-20 ↗
Lockhorst EW … OCCBRIGHT Research Group · Colorectal Disease : the Official Journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · IF 3.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal review · Aug 3, 2026 · Nat Rev Gastro Hep · IF 57.5

Multidisciplinary Delphi consensus statement on minimal standards for clinical metadata and end points in microbiome studies.

Guideline / reviewmicrobiomeguideline
Clinical takeawayNo clinical action yet: this is a consensus statement aimed at harmonizing research practices, not a clinical guideline.
What it foundThe HMA consortium provided 15 recommendations to standardize metadata collection, sampling procedures, data generation, and sharing in gut microbiome-based clinical studies.
ContextThis addresses the lack of standardization in microbiome research, which has been a barrier to comparing and integrating findings across studies.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Schierwagen R … Fasano A · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · IF 57.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
← Back to issue №5 Every section of this issue is one click away, at the top of this page. Follow Colorectal by RSS