Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 474

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gut bacteria dysbiosis and necrotising enterocolitis in very low birthweight infants: a prospective case-control study

Open access
Warner, Barbara B, Deych, Elena, Zhou, Yanjiao, Hall-Moore, Carla, Weinstock, George M, Sodergren, Erica, Shaikh, Nurmohammad, Hoffmann, Julie A, Linneman, Laura A, Hamvas, Aaron, Khanna, Geetika, Rouggly-Nickless, Lucina C, Ndao, I Malick, Shands, Berkley A, Escobedo, Marilyn, Sullivan, Janice E, Radmacher, Paula G, Shannon, William D, Tarr, Phillip I·2016·The Lancet

Abstract

Summary Background Gut bacteria might predispose to or protect from necrotising enterocolitis, a severe illness linked to prematurity. In this observational prospective study we aimed to assess whether one or more bacterial taxa in the gut differ between infants who subsequently develop necrotising enterocolitis (cases) and those who do not (controls). Methods We enrolled very low birthweight (1500 g and lower) infants in the primary cohort (St Louis Children’s Hospital) between July 7, 2009, and Sept 16, 2013, and in the secondary cohorts (Kosair Children’s Hospital and Children’s Hospital at Oklahoma University) between Sept 12, 2011 and May 25, 2013. We prospectively collected and then froze stool samples for all infants. Cases were defined as infants whose clinical courses were consistent with necrotising enterocolitis and whose radiographs fulfilled criteria for Bell’s stage 2 or 3 necrotising enterocolitis. Control infants (one to four per case; not fixed ratios) with similar gestational ages, birthweight, and birth dates were selected from the population after cases were identified. Using primers specific for bacterial 16S rRNA genes, we amplified and then pyrosequenced faecal DNA from stool samples. With use of Dirichlet multinomial analysis and mixed models to account for repeated measures, we identified host factors, including development of necrotising enterocolitis, associated with gut bacterial populations. Findings We studied 2492 stool samples from 122 infants in the primary cohort, of whom 28 developed necrotising enterocolitis; 94 infants were used as controls. The microbial community structure in case stools differed significantly from those in control stools. These differences emerged only after the first month of age. In mixed models, the time-by-necrotising-enterocolitis interaction was positively associated with Gammaproteobacteria (p=0·0010) and negatively associated with strictly anaerobic bacteria, especially Negativicutes (p=0·0019). We studied 1094 stool samples from 44 infants in the secondary cohorts. 18 infants developed necrotising enterocolitis (cases) and 26 were controls. After combining data from all cohorts (166 infants, 3586 stools, 46 cases of necrotising enterocolitis), there were increased proportions of Gammaproteobacteria (p=0·0011) and lower proportions of both Negativicutes (p=0·0013) and the combined Clostridia–Negativicutes class (p=0·0051) in infants who went on to develop necrotising enterocolitis compared with controls. These associations were strongest in both the primary cohort and the overall cohort for infants born at less than 27 weeks’ gestation. Interpretation A relative abundance of Gammaproteobacteria (ie, Gram-negative facultative bacilli) and relative paucity of strict anaerobic bacteria (especially Negativicutes) precede necrotising enterocolitis in very low birthweight infants. These data offer candidate targets for interventions to prevent necrotising enterocolitis, at least among infants born at less than 27 weeks’ gestation. Funding National Institutes of Health (NIH), Foundation for the NIH, the Children’s Discovery Institute.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(16)00081-7

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 31 references

Cited by

See all 474

Metadata

Authors
Warner, B. B., Deych, E., Zhou, Y., Hall-Moore, C., Weinstock, G. M., Sodergren, E., Shaikh, N., Hoffmann, J. A., Linneman, L. A., Hamvas, A., Khanna, G., Rouggly-Nickless, L. C., Ndao, I. M., Shands, B. A., Escobedo, M., Sullivan, J. E., Radmacher, P. G., Shannon, W. D., & Tarr, P. I.
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-05
Volume
387
Issue
10031
Pages
1928-1936
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2295620997
Cited by
474
References
31
FWCI
47.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gut bacteria dysbiosis and necrotising enterocolitis in very low birthweight infants: a prospective case-control study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)00081-7
The paper
Warner, B. B., Deych, E., Zhou, Y., Hall-Moore, C., Weinstock, G. M., Sodergren, E., Shaikh, N., Hoffmann, J. A., Linneman, L. A., Hamvas, A., Khanna, G., Rouggly-Nickless, L. C., Ndao, I. M., Shands, B. A., Escobedo, M., Sullivan, J. E., Radmacher, P. G., Shannon, W. D., & Tarr, P. I. (2016). Gut bacteria dysbiosis and necrotising enterocolitis in very low birthweight infants: a prospective case-control study. The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(16)00081-7

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.