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.
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 in subgroup analyses of trial design or microbiota analysis method (Supplemental Table 6).”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether 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 demonstrated interventions investigating fibers classified as accepted prebiotics and candidate prebiotics resulted in a significantly higher Bifidobacterium spp.abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber controls (accepted prebiotic fiber SMD: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.98; P < 0.00001, I 2 = 81%; candidate prebiotic fiber SMD: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.30, 1.24; P < 0.00001, I 2 = 86%) (Figure”
§ 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.
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
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
“No differences in effect were found between fiber intervention and comparators for α-diversity, abundances of other prespecified bacteria, or other SCFA concentrations.”
- Also stated in: § Dietary fiber and gut microbiota diversity (α-diversity) · plain
“Dietary fiber intervention had no effect on α-diversity compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators (MD: -0.06 Shannon diversity index; 95% CI: -0.25, 0.12; P = 0.48), albeit with substantial heterogeneity (I 2 = 53%).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Abstract
plainn = 393- 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.
- Also stated in: § Dietary fiber and gut microbiota diversity (α-diversity) · plain
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)”
- Also stated in: § Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances · plain
“Dietary fiber led to a significantly greater Bifidobacterium spp.abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators (SMD: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.86; P < 0.00001), albeit with considerable heterogeneity (I 2 = 85%) (Figure 2).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Abstract
plaindirectn = 1,629 ·- 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.
- Also stated in: § Dietary fiber and bacterial abundances · plain
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 α-diversity compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators (MD: -4.37 OTUs; 95% CI: -42.92, 34.19; P = 0.82), with no heterogeneity (I 2 = 0%).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and gut microbiota diversity (α-diversity)
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 demonstrated interventions investigating fibers classified as accepted prebiotics and candidate prebiotics resulted in a significantly higher Bifidobacterium spp.abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber controls (accepted prebiotic fiber SMD: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.38, 0.98; P < 0.00001, I 2 = 81%; candidate prebiotic fiber SMD: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.30, 1.24; P < 0.00001, I 2 = 86%) (Figure”
§ 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
“A trial involving 15 g/d arabinoxylan supplementation reported variable intervention effects when α-diversity was evaluated with different metrics: α-diversity was significantly lower compared with placebo when measured through observed species (P = 0.029), but there were no significant differences when assessed by Simpson's evenness (P = 0.063) (80).”
§ 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 [80] Salden, 2018, Reinforcement of intestinal epithelial barrier by arabinoxylans in overweight and obese subjects: a randomized controlled trial. Arabinoxylans in gut barrier, Clin 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.
In the paper
“Finally, a food study comparing intakes of whole grains with refined-grain products found no significant difference in Bifidobacterium spp.abundance at the end of the intervention period (78).”
§ 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 [78] Cooper, 2017, The effects of moderate whole grain consumption on fasting glucose and lipids, gastrointestinal symptoms, and microbiota, Nutrients 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.
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 led to significantly lower α-diversity compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators in crossover design trials, in which α-diversity was reported with the use of Shannon diversity index (MD: -0.10; 95% CI: -0.19, -0.01; P = 0.03), whereas there was no difference in α-diversity in parallel design trials (MD: -0.03; 95% CI: -0.57, 0.51; P = 0.91) (Supplemental Table 6).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Differences in intervention effects based on trial design
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.
In the paper
“A study evaluating α-diversity through Simpson's index found that it was significantly higher in the intervention group receiving polydextrose compared with placebo after 21 d (P = 0.014) (88).”
§ 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 [88] Costabile, 2012, Impact of polydextrose on the faecal microbiota: a double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled feeding study in healthy human subjects, 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.
In the paper
“In the supplement studies of general fiber, Bifidobacterium spp.abundance was higher after xylo-oligosaccharide supplementation compared with placebo (69) whereas manno-oligosaccharides had no effect on Bifidobacterium spp.compared with placebo (113).”
§ 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 [69] Lin, 2016, Prebiotic effects of xylooligosaccharides on the improvement of microbiota balance in human subjects, Gastroenterol Res Pract 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.
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 fiber types showed accepted prebiotic fiber interventions led to a significantly greater Lactobacillus spp.abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber controls and further reduced heterogeneity (SMD: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.55; P = 0.002, I 2 = 0%) (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.
In the paper
“In the supplement studies of general fiber, Bifidobacterium spp.abundance was higher after xylo-oligosaccharide supplementation compared with placebo (69) whereas manno-oligosaccharides had no effect on Bifidobacterium spp.compared with placebo (113).”
§ 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 [113] Walton, 2010, A double-blind, placebo controlled human study investigating the effects of coffee derived manno-oligosaccharides on the faecal microbiota of a healthy adult population, Int J Probiotics Prebiotics
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.
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 significant differences in effect were found between food interventions and comparators (SMD: 0.35; 95% CI: -0.46, 1.16; P = 0.40, I 2 = 84%).”
§ 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.
In the paper
“A feeding trial comparing whole-grain and refined-grain diets found no difference in α-diversity at end of intervention between the 2 groups, although the metric used to measure α-diversity was not reported (79).”
§ 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 [79] Karl, 2017, Substituting whole grains for refined grains in a 6-wk randomized trial favorably affects energy-balance metrics in healthy men and postmenopausal women, Am J Clin 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.
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 demonstrated interventions involving fiber supplements resulted in a significantly higher Lactobacillus spp.abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber controls while substantially reducing study heterogeneity (SMD: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.31; P = 0.04, I 2 = 7%).”
§ 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
“A trial involving 15 g/d arabinoxylan supplementation reported variable intervention effects when α-diversity was evaluated with different metrics: α-diversity was significantly lower compared with placebo when measured through observed species (P = 0.029), but there were no significant differences when assessed by Simpson's evenness (P = 0.063) (80).”
§ 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 [80] Salden, 2018, Reinforcement of intestinal epithelial barrier by arabinoxylans in overweight and obese subjects: a randomized controlled trial. Arabinoxylans in gut barrier, Clin 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.
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 studies reported on the abundance of A. muciniphila.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether 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 [62] Elison, 2016, Oral supplementation of healthy adults with 2′-O-fucosyllactose and lacto-N-neotetraose is well tolerated and shifts the intestinal microbiota, Br J Nutr 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.
In the paper
“Conversely, significant end of intervention differences in α-diversity measured by Shannon diversity index (P = 0.013) and inverse Simpson index (P = 0.004) were detected between intervention and comparator groups in a supplementation trial involving resistant starch type 2 (77).”
§ 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 [77] Alfa, 2018, A randomized trial to determine the impact of a digestion resistant starch composition on the gut microbiome in older and mid-age adults, Clin 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.
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 analysis method demonstrated dietary fiber led to significantly higher Lactobacillus spp.abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators when enumerated via culture (SMD: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.13, 1.08; P = 0.01).”
§ 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.
In the paper
“In the candidate prebiotic trial of resistant starch supplementation, Bifidobacterium spp.abundance was significantly higher in the intervention group compared with placebo at end of intervention (77).”
§ 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 [77] Alfa, 2018, A randomized trial to determine the impact of a digestion resistant starch composition on the gut microbiome in older and mid-age adults, Clin 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.
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 were no differences in effect in the candidate prebiotic (SMD: -0.06; 95% CI: -0.29, 0.16; P = 0.58, I 2 = 0%) and general fiber (SMD: 0.22; 95% CI: -0.31, 0.75; P = 0.42, I 2 = 74%) subgroups when compared with comparators.”
§ 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
“Dietary fiber led to significantly lower α-diversity compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators in crossover design trials, in which α-diversity was reported with the use of Shannon diversity index (MD: -0.10; 95% CI: -0.19, -0.01; P = 0.03), whereas there was no difference in α-diversity in parallel design trials (MD: -0.03; 95% CI: -0.57, 0.51; P = 0.91) (Supplemental Table 6).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Differences in intervention effects based on trial design
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 led to a significantly greater Lactobacillus spp.abundance compared with placebo/low-fiber comparators (SMD: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.07, 0.68; P = 0.02).”
§ 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
“There were no differences in effect in the candidate prebiotic (SMD: -0.06; 95% CI: -0.29, 0.16; P = 0.58, I 2 = 0%) and general fiber (SMD: 0.22; 95% CI: -0.31, 0.75; P = 0.42, I 2 = 74%) subgroups when compared with comparators.”
§ 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In 2 of the studies not included in the meta-analysis, raffinose and resistant starch interventions did not lead to significant difference in α-diversity compared with placebo (93,101).”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and gut microbiota diversity (α-diversity)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [93] Fernando, 2010, Diets supplemented with chickpea or its main oligosaccharide component raffinose modify faecal microbial composition in healthy adults, Benef Microbes source
- Not checked yetcites [101] Martínez, 2010, Resistant starches types 2 and 4 have differential effects on the composition of the fecal microbiota in human subjects, PLoS One 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.
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 were no significant differences when mean SCFA concentrations were expressed per dry weight of feces.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > Dietary fiber and SCFAs
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
“In regard to particular bacterial groups, this review demonstrated that dietary fiber interventions involving accepted prebiotic fibers led to higher abundance of Bifidobacterium and 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.
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
“Interestingly, there were no differences in the effect of dietary fiber interventions on Bifidobacterium spp.abundance with varying doses of fiber.”
§ 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.
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 separating the effects of food and supplement interventions showed food interventions had no effect on Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
plainn = 301- 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.
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
“General fibers appear to have a limited effect on gut microbiota composition.”
§ 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: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“Conversely, fibers not classified as accepted or candidate prebiotics, here termed general fibers, did not affect the abundance of these taxa.”
§ 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There was no effect of dietary fiber interventions on abundance of other commonly measured bacterial groups (e.g., F. prausnitzii), suggesting that these species may be stimulated by dietary components other than fiber, such as polyols and polyphenols (125).”
§ 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: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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, there is a gap in knowledge regarding the precise impact of dietary fiber intervention on the gut microbiota in healthy subjects, and this is the focus of this systematic review.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > INTRODUCTION
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 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
“Indeed, study design is likely important, as subgroup analysis demonstrated different effects between crossover and parallel trials.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
hedgedcorrelational- 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
“The lack of effect on α-diversity of the gut microbiota found in this review is similar to other dietary interventions documented in the literature.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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
“Attrition bias was adequately addressed by only 41% (54-58, 62, 67, 69, 71, 74-76, 79, 82, 86-89, 92, 93, 98, 99, 105, 107, 108, 110) of the included studies.”
§ 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.
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
“Taken together, long-term dietary diversity as opposed to changes in isolated nutrients or foods over a short period of time may be a stronger driver of microbial diversity.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- 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.
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 risk of bias was low-to-moderate across the 64 included studies (Supplemental Figure 1).”
§ 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.
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 findings suggest that short-term dietary interventions are unlikely to facilitate changes in the α-diversity of the gut microbiota.”
§ 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: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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
“Secondly, baseline fiber intake was not able to be accounted for due to the paucity of reporting by included studies.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
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
“The higher fecal concentration of butyrate after fiber intervention highlights the ability of dietary fiber to beneficially modulate the metabolic outputs of 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.
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
“Dietary fiber intervention led to an effect at all levels of consumption in subgroup analysis (<5 g, 5-10 g, >10 g) with no discernible gradient in effectiveness, suggesting <5 g of dietary fiber is sufficient.”
§ Dietary fiber intervention on gut microbiota composition in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis > DISCUSSION
hedgeddirect- 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
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
