Microbiome dysbiosis and endometriosis: a systematic scoping review of current literature and knowledge gaps
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
STUDY QUESTION: What is the evidence available concerning gut and reproductive tract microbiomes in patients with endometriosis and what are the methodological approaches employed in microbiome studies on endometriosis? SUMMARY ANSWER: The taxonomic profiles exhibited pronounced heterogeneity within women with and also within women without endometriosis across reviewed studies for all the anatomical districts evaluated. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Both human and animal studies support differences in the microbiome composition of individuals with and without endometriosis. Endometriosis onset occurs with variable symptoms and manifestations. The microbiome composition at different sites may contribute to this variability. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: We used the scoping review methodology. Systematic searches of studies from the PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases published between 1 January 2016 and 1 November 2024 addressing endometriosis microbiome characterization in: (i) gut, (ii) vaginal fluid, (iii) cervical fluid, (iv) peritoneal fluid, (v) uterine fluid, (vi) ovarian cyst fluid, (vii) oropharyngeal fluid, and (viii) eutopic and (ix) ectopic tissues were performed using a combination of MeSH terms. References from relevant publications were systematically screened. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Results were reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Studies that did not report original data, not written in English or providing a review of the field were excluded. From the 2182 publications retrieved, 36 papers were selected and analyzed, focusing on sample characterization (patients, controls, tissues, and fluids) and methodologies used. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: sp. in stool/anal fluid of endometriosis patients. However, these findings may be explained by confounders or by intrinsic patient or population characteristics. We appraised the limitations of the studies and proposed suggestions for optimizing sequencing techniques and experimental designs. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The number of participants per study greatly varied and, with few exceptions, was typically low. Incomplete information on methodological approaches was broadly observed. The impact of participants' menstrual cycle phase, diet, and drug assumption was frequently not considered. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Standardization of research protocols to allow reproducibility is required, as well as collaborations to harmonize data analysis, interpretation, and, more importantly, health outcome prediction or improvement. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The review was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health: RF-2019-12369460, and Current Research IRCCS. P.Vi. serves as co-editor in Chief of Journal of Endometriosis and Uterine Disorders. E.S. serves as Editor in Chief of Human Reproduction Open and discloses research grants from Ferring, Ibsa, Gedeon Richter, and Theramex, and honoraria from Ibsa and Gedeon Richter. P.Ve. serves as Associate Editor for Human Reproduction Open; is a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, of the Italian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and of the International Editorial Board of Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica; has received royalties from Wolters Kluwer for chapters on endometriosis management in the clinical decision support resource UpToDate; and maintains both a public and private gynecological practice. All other authors declare they have no conflict of interest. REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/X6HBT at https://osf.io/registries.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,021 | 0,085 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,010 | 0,009 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,031 | 0,026 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».