The DOI matches its Crossref record; 125 of the 132 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 31 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Background Dysfunction of the gut microbiota is frequently reported as a manifestation of chronic diseases, and therefore presents as a modifiable risk factor in their development. Diet is a major regulator of the gut microbiota, and certain types of dietary fiber may modify bacterial numbers and metabolism, including short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) generation.Objective A systematic review and meta-analysis were undertaken to assess the effect of dietary fiber interventions on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults.Design A systematic search was conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL for randomized controlled trials using culture and/or molecular microbiological techniques evaluating the effect of fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults. Meta-analyses via a random-effects model were performed on alpha diversity, prespecified bacterial abundances including Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp., and fecal SCFA concentrations comparing dietary fiber interventions with placebo/low-fiber comparators.Results A total of 64 studies involving 2099 participants were included. Dietary fiber intervention resulted in higher abundance of Bifidobacterium spp. (standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.86; P < 0.00001) and Lactobacillus spp. (SMD: 0.22; 0.03, 0.41; P = 0.02) as well as fecal butyrate concentration (SMD: 0.24; 0.00, 0.47; P = 0.05) compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators. Subgroup analysis revealed that fructans and galacto-oligosaccharides led to significantly greater abundance of both Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp. compared with comparators (P < 0.00001 and P = 0.002, respectively). No differences in effect were found between fiber intervention and comparators for α-diversity, abundances of other prespecified bacteria, or other SCFA concentrations.Conclusions Dietary fiber intervention, particularly involving fructans and galacto-oligosaccharides, leads to higher fecal abundance of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp. but does not affect α-diversity. Further research is required to better understand the role of individual fiber types on the growth of microbes and the overall gut microbial community. This review was registered at PROSPERO as CRD42016053101.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
53 Own result · 24 Not checked yet · 11 Own method · 10 Own interpretation · 5 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there was no difference in effect between the general fiber subgroup and comparators (SMD: 0.25; 95% CI: -0.16, 0.65; P = 0.24, I 2 = 86%).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subgroup analysis of dose-response showed dietary fiber led to significantly higher Bifidobacterium spp.abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators at all predefined dosages (≤5 g/d fiber SMD: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.84; P = 0.003, I 2 = 70%; 5-10 g/d SMD: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.83; P = 0.007, I 2 = 87%; >10 g/d SMD: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.25; P < 0.00001, I 2 = 85%).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In the supplement trials of accepted prebiotics, a significantly higher Bifidobacterium spp.abundance was reported after supplementation involving inulin (115) and human milk oligosaccharides (HMO) (62) compared with placebo at the end of intervention, whereas a significant within-group increase from baseline was detected after 10 g/d inulin supplementation (95).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [115] Blædel, 2016, A randomised, controlled, crossover study of the effect of diet on angiopoietin-like protein 4 (ANGPTL4) through modification of the gut microbiome, J Nutr Sci source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subgroup analysis of dose-response showed dietary fiber led to significantly higher Bifidobacterium spp.abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators at all predefined dosages (≤5 g/d fiber SMD: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.84; P = 0.003, I 2 = 70%; 5-10 g/d SMD: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.83; P = 0.007, I 2 = 87%; >10 g/d SMD: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.25; P < 0.00001, I 2 = 85%).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, subgroup analysis showed fiber interventions delivered through supplements resulted in a significantly higher Bifidobacterium spp.abundance compared with placebo/lowfiber controls (SMD: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.52, 0.98; P < 0.00001, I 2 = 83%), whereas no differences were found between food interventions and comparators (SMD: 0.20; 95% CI: -0.36, 0.76; P = 0.49, I 2 = 88%), although considerable”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subgroup analysis of dose-response showed dietary fiber led to significantly higher Bifidobacterium spp.abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators at all predefined dosages (≤5 g/d fiber SMD: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.18, 0.84; P = 0.003, I 2 = 70%; 5-10 g/d SMD: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.83; P = 0.007, I 2 = 87%; >10 g/d SMD: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.45, 1.25; P < 0.00001, I 2 = 85%).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dietary fiber intervention resulted in higher abundance of Bifidobacterium spp.(standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.86; P < 0.00001) and Lactobacillus spp.(SMD: 0.22; 0.03, 0.41; P = 0.02) as well as fecal butyrate concentration (SMD: 0.24; 0.00, 0.47; P = 0.05) compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Abstract
plaindirectn = 2,099 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subgroup analysis revealed that fructans and galactooligosaccharides led to significantly greater abundance of both Bifidobacterium spp.and Lactobacillus spp.compared with comparators (P < 0.00001 and P = 0.002, respectively).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No differences in effect were found between fiber intervention and comparators for α-diversity, abundances of other prespecified bacteria, or other SCFA concentrations.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subgroup analysis revealed that fructans and galactooligosaccharides led to significantly greater abundance of both Bifidobacterium spp.and Lactobacillus spp.compared with comparators (P < 0.00001 and P = 0.002, respectively).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 35
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Intervention doses ranged from 1.2 g/d to 50 g/d and treatment periods ranged from 5 d to 3 mo, with a median length of 3 wk.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Study characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall, outcome data from 58 studies were suitable for meta-analysis; results from the following studies were unable to be statistically pooled and are presented narratively under their respective subheadings (59, 62, 69, 77-79, 83, 93, 95, 97, 101, 113, 115).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Study characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A significant reduction in the αdiversity of fecal microbiota from baseline was detected in a trial involving flaxseed mucilage, measured by both the exponential of Shannon diversity index (-38,010; 95% CI: -64,473, -11,546; P = 0.007) as well as Simpson's inverse index (-17,515; 95% CI: -30,992, -4038; P = 0.014), although a between-group comparison was not reported (59).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and gut microbiota diversity (α-diversity)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [59] Brahe, 2015, Dietary modulation of the gut microbiota – a randomised controlled trial in obese postmenopausal women, Br J Nutr source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fiber intervention led to significantly higher fecal concentrations of total SCFA, acetate, and butyrate compared with comparators when expressed per wet weight of feces.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and SCFAs
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dietary fiber had no effect on total SCFA concentration compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators (SMD: 0.11; 95% CI: -0.05, 0.27; P = 0.19), with similar intervention effects across studies (I 2 = 0%).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and SCFAs
plainn = 406- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, heterogeneity was considerable (I 2 = 80%), and was skewed by results from a single outlier study (66) (4.70; 95% CI: 3.69, 5.70).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No differences were found between fecal propionate and comparators (SMD: -0.01; 95% CI: -0.20, 0.22; P = 0.95), with moderate heterogeneity detected (I 2 = 61%).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and SCFAs
plainn = 677- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Alpha-diversity was measured in 13 studies involving 393 participants (49,59,64,72,75,77,79,80,83,88,93,97,101).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and gut microbiota diversity (α-diversity)
plainn = 393- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dietary fiber had no effect on Roseburia spp.abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators (SMD: 0.33; 95% CI: -0.14, 0.80; P = 0.17) although substantial heterogeneity was detected (I 2 = 70%) (Figure 4).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plainn = 189- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Lactobacillus spp.abundance was measured in 28 studies involving 867 participants.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plainn = 867- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of these 64 studies, 29 were parallel RCTs (52-80) and 35 were crossover RCTs .”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Study characteristics
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A sensitivity analysis excluding this study produced a more homogeneous study population (I 2 = 49%), with a modest impact on the result (SMD: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.03, 0.41; P = 0.02) (Figure 3).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no difference in fecal acetate after fiber intervention compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators (SMD: 0.28; 95% CI: -0.08, 0.63; P = 0.13), with substantial heterogeneity between studies (I 2 = 86).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and SCFAs
plainn = 657- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no difference between dietary fiber and placebo/low-fiber comparators for F. prausnitzii abundance (SMD: 0.14; 95% CI: -0.12, 0.39; P = 0.29), with substantial heterogeneity between studies (I 2 = 68%) (Figure 4).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plainn = 519- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A total of 59 studies including 1896 participants reported the effect of dietary fiber on Bifidobacterium spp.abundance and, of these, 51 trials (1629 participants) reported data in a form suitable for meta-analysis (53-58, 60, 61, 63-68, 70, 71, 73-76, 81, 82, 84-94, 96-112, 114).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plainn = 1,896- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dietary fiber did not affect E. rectale abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators (SMD: -0.26; 95% CI: -1.20, 0.67; P = 0.58) and substantial heterogeneity was detected (I 2 = 75%) (Figure 4).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plainn = 30- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This systematic review and meta-analysis found dietary fiber intervention had no effect on the diversity of the gut microbiota but did increase abundance of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp. as well as fecal butyrate concentration in healthy adults.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dietary fiber had no effect on R. bromii abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators (SMD: 0.15; 95% CI: -0.15, 0.45; P = 0.33), with no heterogeneity detected (I 2 = 0%) (Figure 4).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
plainn = 76- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fecal butyrate was significantly higher after fiber intervention compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators (SMD: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.47; P = 0.05), although considerable heterogeneity was present (I 2 = 70%).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and SCFAs
plaindirectn = 712 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 64 included primary studies analyzed a total of 2099 participants.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Study characteristics
plainn = 2,099- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The Chao1 index was used to report α-diversity in 2 studies, although there were insufficient data available, precluding meta-analysis.Neither trial reported significant differences between fiber intervention and placebo or low-fiber control (49, 83).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and gut microbiota diversity (α-diversity)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] Hooda, 2012, 454 pyrosequencing reveals a shift in fecal microbiota of healthy adult men consuming polydextrose or soluble corn fiber, J Nutr source
- Not checked yetcites [83] Baer, 2014, The metabolizable energy of dietary resistant maltodextrin is variable and alters fecal microbiota composition in adult men, J Nutr source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the diversity of the gut microbiota, abundances of other commonly measured bacterial groups, and concentrations of other fecal SCFAs were not significantly different compared with controls after dietary fiber intervention, it is worth noting that a short-term increase in fiber intake does not appear to be rate-limiting to these outcomes.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dietary fiber intervention leads to a higher abundance of fecal Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp., as well as higher fecal concentration of butyrate compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, candidate prebiotic interventions produced different effects on the abundance of these 2 genera, with significant effects demonstrated for Bifidobacterium but not Lactobacillus spp.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were differences in intervention effects based on trial design, with parallel design studies demonstrating stronger intervention effects and greater statistical heterogeneity compared with crossover design studies for several outcomes.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Accepted prebiotic fibers had an effect on the abundances of both Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp.whereas candidate prebiotic fibers had an effect on Bifidobacterium spp.abundance but not Lactobacillus spp.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Specific bacteria shown to be more abundant in health compared with disease states include Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp.(2,7,14)”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] Marchesi, 2016, The gut microbiota and host health: a new clinical frontier, Gut source
- Not checked yetcites [7] Clemente, 2012, The impact of the gut microbiota on human health: an integrative view, Cell source
- Not checked yetcites [14] Tojo, 2014, Intestinal microbiota in health and disease: role of bifidobacteria in gut homeostasis, World J Gastroenterol source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Fibers with fermentable characteristics are substrates for the microbial population in the colon, stimulating growth of specific organisms and leading to production of various metabolites including SCFA (19,29,31).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] Flint, 2017, The impact of nutrition on intestinal bacterial communities, Curr Opin Microbiol source
- Not checked yetcites [29] Holscher, 2017, Dietary fiber and prebiotics and the gastrointestinal microbiota, Gut Microbes source
- Not checked yetcites [31] Wong, 2006, Colonic health: fermentation and short chain fatty acids, J Clin Gastroenterol source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two review authors (DS and HMS) screened articles in a blinded, standardized manner, with disagreements in judgment resolved by consensus or a third reviewer (KLC).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Literature search
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two reviewers (DS and HMS) independently extracted the data from eligible studies.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Data extraction and management
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Funnel plots were generated for outcomes in which ≥10 studies were included in meta-analysis (48) and reporting bias was detected by assessment of funnel plot asymmetry by visual inspection.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Statistical analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [48] Sterne, 2008, Addressing reporting biases, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The methods including the eligibility criteria, search strategy, extraction process, and analysis were prespecified and documented in a protocol that was published in the PROSPERO as CRD42016053101: http://www.crd.york. ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016053101.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > METHODS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Indeed, some fibers can be further classified as “prebiotic” (e.g., fructans) if they have been shown to be selectively utilized by host microorganisms conferring a health benefit (32).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Gibson, 2017, Expert consensus document: the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics, Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Risk of bias was independently assessed by 2 reviewers (DS and HMS) using Cochrane methodology (45).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Data extraction and management
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] Higgins, 2008, Assessing risk of bias in included studies, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Visual inspection found no evidence of funnel plot asymmetry, indicating reporting bias was unlikely (Supplemental Figures 234567).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Reporting bias
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For instance, controlled feeding studies lasting 4 d to 3 wk found that despite significant changes to fiber intake, there was no effect on microbial diversity (35)(36)(37).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites (35)(36)(37)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This systematic review was conducted in line with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement (41), and the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews and Interventions (42).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > METHODS
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [41] Moher, 2015, Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement, Systematic Reviews source
- Not checked yetcites [42] Higgins, 2011, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were adequately described by 26% (59-62, 70-72, 77, 79, 80, 84, 86, 94, 103, 113-115) and 16% (59,61,62,70,77,79,80,86,94,115) of studies, respectively.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Risk of bias
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the totality of findings here, including that microbial diversity was not compromised, support the favorable effects of dietary fiber on the gut microbiota.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results further support the favorable effects of dietary fiber and contribute to our understanding of its effect on the gut microbiota.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effect of dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Firstly, there were only a limited number of studies reporting the primary outcome of α-diversity, and a small proportion presenting data via the same diversity indexes.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Furthermore, included studies sampled feces as a surrogate for gut microbiota profile, and although feces are a common sampling route, the microbial composition of feces differs from the mucosal microbiota (10,11), which is in closer contact with the host and may be more important when considering the relation between microbiota and disease pathophysiology or outcomes.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Fraher, 2012, Techniques used to characterize the gut microbiota: a guide for the clinician, Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol source
- Not checked yetcites [11] Zoetendal, 2002, Mucosa-associated bacteria in the human gastrointestinal tract are uniformly distributed along the colon and differ from the community recovered from feces, Appl Environ Microbiol source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the limited number of taxa assessed in the review may not convey the overall effect elicited by dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition and metabolic outputs, although the selection of taxa was guided by the available literature.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Major strengths of this study include its robust design, comprehensive search strategies, and the use of 2 independent reviewers.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Dietary fiber is not digested by the host in the small intestine and reaches the colon where it is available to gut microbes.
“It is a key candidate in facilitating changes in the gut microbiota, as it escapes digestion by the host in the small intestine to pass into the colon where it is available to the microbial community.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Given that many of the response-associated bacteria identified in our cohort have known roles in starch degradation and fiber fermentation (25–29)”
From Dietary fiber and probiotics influence the gut microbiome and melanoma immunotherapy response (2021) · cites this paper as [28]
In the citing paper
“Fiber supplementation was found to enrich Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp., whereas no effect was found on the other common SCFA producers except for increases in Roseburia spp. and F prausnitzii in parallel (rather than crossover) trials.”
From Influence of the Gut Microbiome, Diet, and Environment on Risk of Colorectal Cancer (2020) · cites this paper as [128]
In the citing paper
“Fiber supplementation increased the concentration of butyrate in fecal samples.128”
From Influence of the Gut Microbiome, Diet, and Environment on Risk of Colorectal Cancer (2020) · cites this paper as [128]
In the citing paper
“A 2018 systematic review and meta-analysis observed the effect of fibre on the gut microbiota from 64 studies. Dietary fibre interventions, particularly fructans and galactooligosaccharides (GOS), were found to increase faecal abundance of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus species but did not affect alpha-diversity [37].”
From Effect of Diet on the Gut Microbiota: Rethinking Intervention Duration (2019) · cites this paper as [37]
In the citing paper
“Prebiotic consumption has been associated with growth of Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus and lactic acid bacteria. Conversely, fibres not classified as prebiotics, do not appear to affect the abundance of Bifidobacterium or Lactobacillus [37].”
From Effect of Diet on the Gut Microbiota: Rethinking Intervention Duration (2019) · cites this paper as [37]
In the citing paper
“Soluble, fermentable fiber can increase microbial enzymatic capacity to degrade complex carbohydrates and produce health-promoting SCFAs, namely acetate, propionate, and butyrate (114, 118).”
From Diet and the Microbiota–Gut–Brain Axis: Sowing the Seeds of Good Mental Health (2021) · cites this paper as [114]
In the citing paper
“Nevertheless, it is mostly accepted that greater diversity, richness, and stability, and a higher relative abundance of species associated with the production of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) (eg, Faecalibacterium prausnitziii, Bacteroides spp, Roseburia spp, Bifidobacterium spp, and Lactobacillus spp) are hallmarks of a microbial community that is associated with better health outcomes.11”
From Effect of Fluoride on Gut Microbiota: A Systematic Review (2025) · cites this paper as [11]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
“Two studies of 32 participants measured E. hallii abundance.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances
“One study reported no within-group difference in E. hallii abundance (50,62), the other reported a significant decrease in E. hallii abundance compared with placebo (49).”
Citations
Cites
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome
David, L. A., Maurice, C. F., Carmody, R. N., Gootenberg, D. B., Button, J. E., Wolfe, B. E., Ling, A. V., Devlin, A. S., Varma, Y., Fischbach, M. A., et al. (2014) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12820 · Cited by 10,100
Linking long-term dietary patterns with gut microbial enterotypes
Wu, G. D., Chen, J., Hoffmann, C., Bittinger, K., Chen, Y.-Y., Keilbaugh, S. A., Bewtra, M., Knights, D., Walters, W. A., Knight, R., et al. (2011) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1208344 · Cited by 6,513
Gibson, G. R., Hutkins, R., Sanders, M. E., Prescott, S. L., Reimer, R. A., Salminen, S. J., Scott, K., Stanton, C., Swanson, K. S., Cani, P. D., et al. (2017) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2017.75 · Cited by 5,634
De Filippo, C., Cavalieri, D., Di Paola, M., Ramazzotti, M., Poullet, J. B., Massart, S., Collini, S., Pieraccini, G., & Lionetti, P. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1005963107 · Cited by 5,579
Revised Estimates for the Number of Human and Bacteria Cells in the Body
Sender, R., Fuchs, S., & Milo, R. (2016) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002533 · Cited by 5,425
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Tarsilla, M. (2010) · Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation · doi:10.56645/jmde.v6i14.284 · Cited by 5,232
den Besten, G., van Eunen, K., Groen, A. K., Venema, K., Reijngoud, D.-J., & Bakker, B. M. (2013) · Journal of Lipid Research · doi:10.1194/jlr.r036012 · Cited by 5,048
The gut microbiota shapes intestinal immune responses during health and disease
Round, J. L., & Mazmanian, S. K. (2009) · Nature Reviews Immunology · doi:10.1038/nri2515 · Cited by 5,029
Gut microbiota in health and disease
Sekirov, I., Russell, S. L., Antunes, L. C. M., & Finlay, B. B. (2010) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00045.2009 · Cited by 4,182
The impact of the gut microbiota on human health: an integrative view
Clemente, J. C., Ursell, L. K., Parfrey, L. W., & Knight, R. (2012) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2012.01.035 · Cited by 3,710
Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies
Higgins, J. P., & Altman, D. G. (2008) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch8 · Cited by 3,396
Gut microbiota composition correlates with diet and health in the elderly
Claesson, M. J., Jeffery, I. B., Conde, S., Power, S. E., O’Connor, E. M., Cusack, S., Harris, H. M. B., Coakley, M., Lakshminarayanan, B., O’Sullivan, O., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11319 · Cited by 3,314
The ecology of the microbiome: Networks, competition, and stability
Coyte, K. Z., Schlüter, J., & Foster, K. R. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aad2602 · Cited by 2,812
Colonic Health: Fermentation and Short Chain Fatty Acids
Wong, J. M. W., de Souza, R., Kendall, C. W. C., Emam, A., & Jenkins, D. J. A. (2006) · Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology · doi:10.1097/00004836-200603000-00015 · Cited by 2,739
Population-level analysis of gut microbiome variation
Falony, G., Joossens, M., Vieira-Silva, S., Wang, J., Darzi, Y., Faust, K., Kurilshikov, A., Bonder, M. J., Valles-Colomer, M., Vandeputte, D., et al. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aad3503 · Cited by 2,400
Meta-analyses involving cross-over trials: methodological issues
Elbourne, D. R., Altman, D. G., Higgins, J. P., Curtin, F., Worthington, H. V., & Vail, A. (2002) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/31.1.140 · Cited by 2,305
The gut microbiota and host health: a new clinical frontier
Marchesi, J. R., Adams, D. H., Fava, F., Hermes, G. D. A., Hirschfield, G. M., Hold, G., Quraishi, M. N., Kinross, J., Smidt, H., Tuohy, K. M., et al. (2016) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309990 · Cited by 2,302 · cited 3×
“(2, 7, 14), whose functions include carbohydrate 47 fermentation and vitamin synthesis (15-18).”
BackgroundPrebiotic effects: metabolic and health benefits
Roberfroid, M. B., Gibson, G. R., Hoyles, L., McCartney, A. L., Rastall, R. A., Rowland, I. R., Wolvers, D. A. W., Watzl, B., Szajewska, H., Stahl, B., et al. (2010) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114510003363 · Cited by 2,170
Self-citationPopulation-based metagenomics analysis reveals markers for gut microbiome composition and diversity
Zhernakova, A., Kurilshikov, A., Bonder, M. J., Tigchelaar, E. F., Schirmer, M., Vatanen, T., Mujagic, Z., Vila, A. V., Falony, G., Vieira-Silva, S., et al. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aad3369 · Cited by 1,914
Rivière, A., Selak, M., Lantin, D., Leroy, F., & Vuyst, L. D. (2016) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2016.00979 · Cited by 1,810
Dietary fiber and prebiotics and the gastrointestinal microbiota
Holscher, H. D. (2017) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.1080/19490976.2017.1290756 · Cited by 1,808
Dominant and diet-responsive groups of bacteria within the human colonic microbiota
Walker, A. W., Ince, J., Duncan, S. H., Webster, L. M., Holtrop, G., Ze, X., Brown, D., Stares, M. D., Scott, P., Bergerat, A., et al. (2011) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2010.118 · Cited by 1,632
Bacteria as vitamin suppliers to their host: A gut microbiota perspective
LeBlanc, J. G., Milani, C., de Giori, G. S., Sesma, F., van Sinderen, D., & Ventura, M. (2013) · Current Opinion in Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.copbio.2012.08.005 · Cited by 1,613 · cited 1×
“vitamins (4) and interaction with the immune system (5, 6).”
BackgroundPotential beneficial effects of butyrate in intestinal and extraintestinal diseases
Canani, R. B. (2011) · World Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.3748/wjg.v17.i12.1519 · Cited by 1,381
Gut microbiome of the Hadza hunter-gatherers
Schnorr, S. L., Candela, M., Rampelli, S., Centanni, M., Consolandi, C., Basaglia, G., Turroni, S., Biagi, E., Peano, C., Severgnini, M., et al. (2014) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms4654 · Cited by 1,317
Diet, microorganisms and their metabolites, and colon cancer
O'Keefe, S. J. D. (2016) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2016.165 · Cited by 1,100
Ruminococcus bromii is a keystone species for the degradation of resistant starch in the human colon
Ze, X., Duncan, S. H., Louis, P., & Flint, H. J. (2012) · The ISME Journal · doi:10.1038/ismej.2012.4 · Cited by 1,060
Links between diet, gut microbiota composition and gut metabolism
Flint, H. J., Duncan, S. H., Scott, K. P., & Louis, P. (2015) · Proceedings of the Nutrition Society · doi:10.1017/s0029665114001463 · Cited by 1,020
Carbohydrate metabolism in Bifidobacteria
Pokusaeva, K., Fitzgerald, G. F., & van Sinderen, D. (2011) · Genes & Nutrition · doi:10.1007/s12263-010-0206-6 · Cited by 890
Zoetendal, E. G., von Wright, A., Vilpponen-Salmela, T., Ben-Amor, K., Akkermans, A. D. L., & de Vos, W. M. (2002) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.68.7.3401-3407.2002 · Cited by 868
Dewulf, E. M., Cani, P. D., Claus, S. P., Fuentes, S., Puylaert, P. G., Neyrinck, A. M., Bindels, L. B., de Vos, W. M., Gibson, G. R., Thissen, J.-P., et al. (2013) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303304 · Cited by 825
Ramirez-Farias, C., Slezak, K., Fuller, Z., Duncan, A., Holtrop, G., & Louis, P. (2008) · British Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114508019880 · Cited by 822
Dietary prebiotics: current status and new definition
Gibson, G. R., Scott, K. P., Rastall, R. A., Tuohy, K. M., Hotchkiss, A. T., Dubert‐Ferrandon, A., Gareau, M. G., Murphy, E. F., Saulnier, D. M. A., Loh, G., et al. (2010) · Food Science & Technology Bulletin Functional Foods · doi:10.1616/1476-2137.15880 · Cited by 820
Folate Production by Probiotic Bacteria
Rossi, M., Amaretti, A., & Raimondi, S. (2011) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu3010118 · Cited by 683
Self-citationMatsuki, T., Watanabe, K., Fujimoto, J., Miyamoto, Y., Takada, T., Matsumoto, K., Oyaizu, H., & Tanaka, R. (2002) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.68.11.5445-5451.2002 · Cited by 663
Sterne, J. A., Egger, M., & Moher, D. (2008) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch10 · Cited by 651
Martínez, I., Kim, J., Duffy, P. R., Schlegel, V. L., & Walter, J. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015046 · Cited by 645
McRorie, J. W., & McKeown, N. M. (2016) · Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · doi:10.1016/j.jand.2016.09.021 · Cited by 602
Species divergence and the measurement of microbial diversity
Lozupone, C., & Knight, R. D. (2008) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.2008.00111.x · Cited by 558
Intestinal microbiota in health and disease: Role of bifidobacteria in gut homeostasis
Tojo, R. (2014) · World Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.3748/wjg.v20.i41.15163 · Cited by 533
Chapter 12: Human Microbiome Analysis
Morgan, X. C., & Huttenhower, C. (2012) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002808 · Cited by 496
Metabolism of Oligosaccharides and Starch in Lactobacilli: A Review
Gänzle, M. G., & Follador, R. (2012) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2012.00340 · Cited by 492
Higgins, J. P., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2008) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch16 · Cited by 475
Selecting Studies and Collecting Data
Higgins, J. P., & Deeks, J. J. (2008) · Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions · doi:10.1002/9780470712184.ch7 · Cited by 467
Fiber and Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders
Eswaran, S. L., Muir, J. G., & Chey, W. D. (2013) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1038/ajg.2013.63 · Cited by 451
Vulevic, J., Drakoularakou, A., Yaqoob, P., Tzortzis, G., & Gibson, G. R. (2008) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.3945/ajcn.2008.26242 · Cited by 451
Immunomodulatory mechanisms of lactobacilli
Wells, J. M. (2011) · Microbial Cell Factories · doi:10.1186/1475-2859-10-s1-s17 · Cited by 449
Costabile, A., Klinder, A., Fava, F., Napolitano, A., Fogliano, V., Leonard, C., Gibson, G. R., & Tuohy, K. M. (2008) · British Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114507793923 · Cited by 444 · cited 4×
“Of these 64 studies, 194 29 were parallel RCTs (52-80) and 35 were crossover RCTs (81-115).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRole of the intestinal microbiome in health and disease: from correlation to causation
de Vos, W. M., & de Vos, E. A. (2012) · Nutrition Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1753-4887.2012.00505.x · Cited by 440
Bouhnik, Y., Raskine, L., Simoneau, G., Vicaut, É., Neut, C., Flourié, B., Brouns, F. J. P. H., & Bornet, F. R. J. (2004) · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/80.6.1658 · Cited by 412
Gut microbiota richness promotes its stability upon increased dietary fibre intake in healthy adults
Tap, J., Furet, J., Bensaada, M., Philippe, C., Roth, H., Rabot, S., Lakhdari, O., Lombard, V., Henrissat, B., Corthier, G., et al. (2015) · Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1111/1462-2920.13006 · Cited by 397
Bouhnik, Y., Vahedi, K., Achour, L., Attar, A., Salfati, J., Pochart, P., Marteau, P. R., Flourié, B., Bornet, F. R. J., & Rambaud, J. (1999) · Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1093/jn/129.1.113 · Cited by 386
Techniques used to characterize the gut microbiota: a guide for the clinician
Fraher, M. H., O'Toole, P. W., & Quigley, E. M. M. (2012) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2012.44 · Cited by 385
Moreno‐Indias, I., Sánchez‐Alcoholado, L., Pérez‐Martínez, P., Andrés‐Lacueva, C., Cardona, F., Tinahones, F. J., & Queipo‐Ortuño, M. I. (2015) · Food & Function · doi:10.1039/c5fo00886g · Cited by 383
Davis, L. M. G., Martínez, I., Walter, J., Goin, C., & Hutkins, R. W. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025200 · Cited by 329
Vulevic, J., Juric, A., Walton, G. E., Claus, S. P., Tzortzis, G., Toward, R. E., & Gibson, G. R. (2015) · British Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114515001889 · Cited by 317
Tuohy, K. M., Kolida, S., Lustenberger, A. M., & Gibson, G. R. (2001) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1079/bjn2001394 · Cited by 302
Manipulating the gut microbiota to maintain health and treat disease
Scott, K. P., Antoine, J., Midtvedt, T., & van Hemert, S. (2015) · Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease · doi:10.3402/mehd.v26.25877 · Cited by 293
Vanegas, S. M., Meydani, M., Barnett, J. B., Goldin, B., Kane, A., Rasmussen, H., Brown, C., Vangay, P., Knights, D., Jonnalagadda, S., et al. (2017) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.3945/ajcn.116.146928 · Cited by 277
Hooda, S., Boler, B. M. V., Serao, M. C. R., Brulc, J. M., Staeger, M. A., Boileau, T. W., Dowd, S. E., Fahey, G. C., & Swanson, K. S. (2012) · The Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.3945/jn.112.158766 · Cited by 272
Depeint, F., Tzortzis, G., Vulevic, J., I'Anson, K., & Gibson, G. R. (2008) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/87.3.785 · Cited by 268
Lecerf, J.-M., Dépeint, F., Clerc, E., Dugenet, Y., Niamba, C. N., Rhazi, L., Cayzeele, A., Abdelnour, G., Jaruga, A., Younes, H., et al. (2012) · British Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114511007252 · Cited by 262
Xylooligosaccharide increases bifidobacteria but not lactobacilli in human gut microbiota
Finegold, S. M., Li, Z., Summanen, P. H., Downes, J., Thames, G., Corbett, K., Dowd, S., Krak, M., & Heber, D. (2014) · Food & Function · doi:10.1039/c3fo60348b · Cited by 255
Abell, G. C. J., Cooke, C. M., Bennett, C. N., Conlon, M. A., & McOrist, A. L. (2008) · FEMS Microbiology Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1574-6941.2008.00527.x · Cited by 239
Dietary fibre and the gut microbiota
Scott, K. P., Duncan, S. H., & Flint, H. J. (2008) · Nutrition Bulletin · doi:10.1111/j.1467-3010.2008.00706.x · Cited by 237
Costabile, A., Kolida, S., Klinder, A., Gietl, E., Bäuerlein, M., Frohberg, C., Landschütze, V., & Gibson, G. R. (2010) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114510001571 · Cited by 224
Bouhnik, Y., Flourié, B., Riottot, M., Bisetti, N., Gailing, M., Guibert, A., Bornet, F. R. J., & Rambaud, J. (1996) · Nutrition and Cancer · doi:10.1080/01635589609514459 · Cited by 221
Elison, E., Vigsnaes, L. K., Rindom Krogsgaard, L., Rasmussen, J., Sørensen, N., McConnell, B., Hennet, T., Sommer, M. O. A., & Bytzer, P. (2016) · British Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114516003354 · Cited by 218
Calame, W., Weseler, A. R., Viebke, C., Flynn, C., & Siemensma, A. D. (2008) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114508981447 · Cited by 208
Studies on the effects of polydextrose intake on physiologic functions in Chinese people
Jie, Z., Bang-yao, L., Ming-jie, X., Hai-wei, L., Zu-kang, Z., Ting-song, W., & Craig, S. A. (2000) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/72.6.1503 · Cited by 207
Holscher, H. D., Bauer, L. L., Gourineni, V., Pelkman, C., Fahey, G. C., Jr., & Swanson, K. S. (2015) · Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.3945/jn.115.217331 · Cited by 186
Diversity, ecology and intestinal function of bifidobacteria
Bottacini, F., Ventura, M., van Sinderen, D., & Motherway, M. O. (2014) · Microbial Cell Factories · doi:10.1186/1475-2859-13-s1-s4 · Cited by 184
Kleessen, B., Schwarz, S., Boehm, A., Fuhrmann, H., Richter, A., Henle, T., & Krueger, M. (2007) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114507730751 · Cited by 182
Ross, A. B., Bruce, S. J., Blondel‐Lubrano, A., Oguey-Araymon, S., Beaumont, M., Bourgeois, A., Nielsen-Moennoz, C., Vigo, M., Fay, L., Kochhar, S., et al. (2011) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114510005209 · Cited by 177
Walton, G., van den Heuvel, E. G. H. M., Kosters, M. H. W., Rastall, R. A., Tuohy, K. M., & Gibson, G. R. (2011) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114511004697 · Cited by 174
Dietary Fructooligosaccharides Affect Intestinal Barrier Function in Healthy Men
ten Bruggencate, S., Bovee-Oudenhoven, I. M. J., Lettink-Wissink, M. L. G., Katan, M., & van der Meer, R. (2006) · Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1093/jn/136.1.70 · Cited by 173
Brahe, L. K., Le Chatelier, E., Prifti, E., Pons, N., Kennedy, S., Blædel, T., Håkansson, J., Dalsgaard, T. K., Hansen, T., Pedersen, O., et al. (2015) · British Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114515001786 · Cited by 171
Some are more equal than others
Ze, X., Mougen, F. L., Duncan, S. H., Louis, P., & Flint, H. J. (2013) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.4161/gmic.23998 · Cited by 157
Cloetens, L., Broekaert, W. F., Delaedt, Y., Ollevier, F., Courtin, C. M., Delcour, J. A., Rutgeerts, P. J., & Verbeke, K. (2009) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114509992248 · Cited by 151
Fernando, W., Hill, J., Zello, G., Tyler, R., Dahl, W., & Van Kessel, A. (2010) · Beneficial Microbes · doi:10.3920/bm2009.0027 · Cited by 151
Microbiome: Should we diversify from diversity?
Johnson, K. V. ‐., & Burnet, P. W. J. (2016) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.1080/19490976.2016.1241933 · Cited by 151
The impact of nutrition on intestinal bacterial communities
Flint, H. J., Duncan, S. H., & Louis, P. (2017) · Current Opinion in Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.mib.2017.04.005 · Cited by 149
Alfa, M. J., Strang, D., Tappia, P. S., Graham, M., Van Domselaar, G., Forbes, J. D., Laminman, V., Olson, N., DeGagne, P., Bray, D., et al. (2018) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2017.03.025 · Cited by 149
der Meulen, R. V., Adriany, T., Verbrugghe, K., & Vuyst, L. D. (2006) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.00146-06 · Cited by 148
François, I., Lescroart, O., Veraverbeke, W. S., Marzorati, M., Possemiers, S., Evenepoel, P., Hamer, H. M., Houben, E., Windey, K., Welling, G. W., et al. (2012) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114512000372 · Cited by 144
Bouhnik, Y., Raskine, L., Simoneau, G., Paineau, D., & Bornet, F. R. J. (2006) · Nutrition Journal · doi:10.1186/1475-2891-5-8 · Cited by 142
Carvalho-Wells, A. L., Helmolz, K., Nodet, C., Mölzer, C., Leonard, C., McKevith, B., Thielecke, F., Jackson, K. G., & Tuohy, K. M. (2010) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114510002084 · Cited by 140
Alles, M. S., Hartemink, R., Meyboom, S., Harryvan, J. L., Laere, K. M. J. V., Nagengast, F. M., & HAUTVAST, J. G. A. J. (1999) · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/69.5.980 · Cited by 140
Costabile, A., Fava, F., Röytiö, H., Forssten, S. D., Olli, K., Klievink, J., Rowland, I. R., Ouwehand, A. C., Rastall, R. A., Gibson, G. R., et al. (2012) · British Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114511005782 · Cited by 135
Prebiotic Effects of Xylooligosaccharides on the Improvement of Microbiota Balance in Human Subjects
Lin, S.-H., Chou, L.-M., Chien, Y.-W., Chang, J.-S., & Lin, C.-I. (2016) · Gastroenterology Research and Practice · doi:10.1155/2016/5789232 · Cited by 135
Satokari, R. M., Vaughan, E. E., Smidt, H., Saarela, M., Mättö, J., & de Vos, W. M. (2003) · Systematic and Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1078/072320203770865882 · Cited by 123
Ramnani, P., Gaudier, E. A., Bingham, M. O., van Bruggen, P., Tuohy, K. M., & Gibson, G. R. (2010) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s000711451000036x · Cited by 121
Walton, G., Lu, C., Trogh, I., Arnaut, F., & Gibson, G. R. (2012) · Nutrition Journal · doi:10.1186/1475-2891-11-36 · Cited by 119
Whelan, K., Judd, P. A., Preedy, V. R., Simmering, R., Jann, A., & Taylor, M. A. (2005) · The Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1093/jn/135.8.1896 · Cited by 118
Self-citationLong-term gastrointestinal tolerance of NUTRIOSE®FB in healthy men
Pasman, W. J., Wils, D., Saniez, M.-H., & Kardinaal, A. F. M. (2006) · European Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602418 · Cited by 102
Boler, B. M. V., Serao, M. C. R., Bauer, L. L., Staeger, M. A., Boileau, T. W.-M., Swanson, K. S., & Fahey, G. C., Jr. (2011) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114511002388 · Cited by 100
Petry, N., Egli, I. M., Chassard, C., Lacroix, C., & Hurrell, R. F. (2012) · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.3945/ajcn.112.035717 · Cited by 98
Ampatzoglou, A., Atwal, K., Maidens, C. M., Williams, C. L., Ross, A. B., Thielecke, F., Jonnalagadda, S. S., Kennedy, O. B., & Yaqoob, P. (2014) · Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.3945/jn.114.202176 · Cited by 97
Maki, K. C., Gibson, G. R., Dickmann, R., Kendall, C. W. C., Chen, C.-Y. O., Costabile, A., Comelli, E. M., McKay, D. L., Almeida, N. G., Jenkins, D. J. A., et al. (2012) · Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.nut.2012.02.010 · Cited by 92
Karl, J. P., Meydani, M., Barnett, J. B., Vanegas, S. M., Goldin, B., Kane, A., Rasmussen, H., Saltzman, E., Vangay, P., Knights, D., et al. (2017) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.3945/ajcn.116.139683 · Cited by 89
Prolonged administration of low-dose inulin stimulates the growth of bifidobacteria in humans
Bouhnik, Y., Raskine, L., Champion, K., Andrieux, C., Penven, S., Jacobs, H., & Simoneau, G. (2007) · Nutrition Research · doi:10.1016/j.nutres.2007.01.013 · Cited by 88
Fastinger, N. D., Karr‐Lilienthal, L. K., Spears, J. K., Swanson, K. S., Zinn, K. E., Nava, G. M., Ohkuma, K., Kanahori, S., Gordon, D. T., & Fahey, G. C., Jr. (2008) · Journal of the American College of Nutrition · doi:10.1080/07315724.2008.10719712 · Cited by 87
Pallav, K., Dowd, S. E., Villafuerte-Gálvez, J., Yang, X., Kabbani, T. A., Hansen, J., Dennis, M. D., Leffler, D. A., Newburg, D. S., & Kelly, C. P. (2014) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.4161/gmic.29558 · Cited by 86
Gopal, P. K., Prasad, J., & Gill, H. S. (2003) · Nutrition Research · doi:10.1016/s0271-5317(03)00134-9 · Cited by 86
Smith, S. C., Choy, R., Johnson, S. K., Hall, R. S., Wildeboer-Veloo, A. C. M., & Welling, G. W. (2006) · European Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.1007/s00394-006-0603-1 · Cited by 84
Damen, B., Cloetens, L., Broekaert, W. F., François, I., Lescroart, O., Trogh, I., Arnaut, F., Welling, G. W., Wijffels, J., Delcour, J. A., et al. (2012) · Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.3945/jn.111.146464 · Cited by 83
Salden, B. N., Troost, F. J., Wilms, E., Truchado, P., Vilchez-Vargas, R., Pieper, D. H., Jáuregui, R., Marzorati, M., van de Wiele, T., Possemiers, S., et al. (2018) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2017.01.024 · Cited by 77
Baer, D. J., Stote, K. S., Henderson, T., Paul, D. R., Okuma, K., Tagami, H., Kanahori, S., Gordon, D. T., Rumpler, W. V., Ukhanova, M., et al. (2014) · The Journal of Nutrition · doi:10.3945/jn.113.185298 · Cited by 76 · cited 6×
“Of these 64 studies, 194 29 were parallel RCTs (52-80) and 35 were crossover RCTs (81-115).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialFuller, Z., Louis, P., Mihajlovski, A., Rungapamestry, V., Ratcliffe, B., & Duncan, A. J. (2007) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114507709091 · Cited by 74
Clarke, S. T., Green-Johnson, J. M., Brooks, S. P. J., Ramdath, D. D., Berčík, P., Avila, C., Inglis, G. D., Green, J., Yanke, L. J., Selinger, L. B., et al. (2016) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114516000908 · Cited by 68
Ramnani, P., Costabile, A., Bustillo, A. G. R., & Gibson, G. R. (2015) · Journal of Nutritional Science · doi:10.1017/jns.2014.68 · Cited by 62
Cooper, D., Kable, M., Marco, M., De Leon, A., Rust, B., Baker, J., Horn, W., Burnett, D., & Keim, N. (2017) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu9020173 · Cited by 61
Slavin, J. L., & Feirtag, J. M. (2010) · Food & Function · doi:10.1039/c0fo00101e · Cited by 61
Maneerat, S., Lehtinen, M. J., Childs, C. E., Forssten, S. D., Alhoniemi, E. J., Tiphaine, M., Yaqoob, P., Ouwehand, A. C., & Rastall, R. A. (2013) · Journal of Nutritional Science · doi:10.1017/jns.2013.31 · Cited by 56
Lomax, A. R., Cheung, L. V. Y., Tuohy, K. M., Noakes, P. S., Miles, E. A., & Calder, P. C. (2012) · British Journal Of Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s0007114511007276 · Cited by 47
Gueimonde, M., Debor, L. J., Tölkkö, S., Jokisalo, E., & Salminen, S. (2006) · Journal of Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.03145.x · Cited by 38
Effects of fermented brown rice on the intestinal environments in healthy adult
Nemoto, H., Ikata, K., Arimochi, H., Iwasaki, T., Ohnishi, Y., Kuwahara, T., & Kataoka, K. (2011) · The Journal of Medical Investigation · doi:10.2152/jmi.58.235 · Cited by 31
Gråsten, S., Juntunen, K. S., Mättö, J., Mykkanen, O., El-Nezami, H., Adlercreutz, H., Poutanen, K., & Mykkänen, H. (2007) · doi:10.1016/j.nutres.2007.05.010 · Cited by 26
Colonic bacterial activity and serum lipid risk factors for cardiovascular disease
Jenkins, D. J. A., Vuksan, V. V. V., Rao, A. V., Vidgen, E., Kendall, C. W. C., Tariq, N. A., Würsch, P., Koellreutter, B., Shiwnarain, N., & Jeffcoat, R. (1999) · Metabolism · doi:10.1016/s0026-0495(99)90045-8 · Cited by 26
Walton, G., Rastall, R. A., Martini, M., Williams, C. C., Jeffries, R. A., & Gibson, G. R. (2010) · International Journal of Probiotics and Prebiotics · Cited by 24
Blædel, T., Holm, J. B., Sundekilde, U. K., Schmedes, M. S., Hess, A. L., Lorenzen, J. K., Kristiansen, K., Dalsgaard, T. K., Astrup, A., & Larsen, L. H. (2016) · Journal of Nutritional Science · doi:10.1017/jns.2016.38 · Cited by 22
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Elmagarmid, 2014, Rayyan: a systematic reviews web app for exploring and filtering searches for eligible studies for Cochrane Reviews, Evidence-informed public health: opportunities and challenges. Abstracts of the 22nd Cochrane Colloquium
- Zeng, 2015, Effects of whole grain-bean mixed staple food on intestinal microecology and metabolic parameters of obese people, Chinese J Clin Nutr, 23, 27
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cryan, J. F., O'Riordan, K. J., Cowan, C. S. M., Sandhu, K. V., Bastiaanssen, T. F. S., Boehme, M., Codagnone, M. G., Cussotto, S., Fulling, C., Golubeva, A. V., et al. (2019) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00018.2018 · Cited by 5,286
Role of the gut microbiota in nutrition and health
Valdes, A. M., Walter, J., Segal, E., & Spector, T. D. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k2179 · Cited by 2,375
Gut microbiota in colorectal cancer: mechanisms of action and clinical applications
Wong, S. H., & Yu, J. (2019) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/s41575-019-0209-8 · Cited by 1,392
Gut-microbiota-targeted diets modulate human immune status
Wastyk, H. C., Fragiadakis, G. K., Perelman, D., Dahan, D., Merrill, B. D., Yu, F. B., Topf, M., Gonzalez, C. G., Van Treuren, W., Han, S., et al. (2021) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2021.06.019 · Cited by 1,385
Short-Chain Fatty-Acid-Producing Bacteria: Key Components of the Human Gut Microbiota
Fusco, W. G., Bernabeu, M., Cintoni, M., Porcari, S., Rinninella, E., Kaitsas, F., Lener, E., Mele, M. C., Gasbarrini, A., Collado, M. C., et al. (2023) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu15092211 · Cited by 1,397
Metadata
- Authors
- So, D., Whelan, K., Rossi, M., Morrison, M., Holtmann, G., Kelly, J. T., Shanahan, E. R., Staudacher, H. M., & Campbell, K. L.
- Affiliations
- Bond University (AU)
- King's College London (GB)
- Translational Research Institute (AU)
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Campbell, Katrina L
- ORCID
- Venue
- The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-06
- Volume
- 107
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 965-983
- ISSN
- 0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2790004059
- Cited by
- 683
- References
- 132
- Citations by year
- 2026: 61 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 88 · 2023: 98 · 2022: 100 · 2021: 114 · 2020: 75 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 12
- FWCI
- 5.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Microbial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
- Keywords
- dietary fiber, gut microbiota composition, Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus, short-chain fatty acids, butyrate, fructans, galactooligosaccharides, alpha diversity, healthy adults, dietary intervention, prebiotics, gut dysbiosis, chronic disease risk factors, fecal microbiota, bacterial abundance
- MeSH terms
- Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Adult, Bacteria, Dietary Fiber, Food Analysis, Humans
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
