Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. Disease mechanisms

Topic: Gut, metabolism and diet

Context Gut dysbiosis has been proposed as one of pathologies in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) spectrum. Despite such enthusiasm, the relevant results remain substantially controversial. Objective A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to investigate the differences of gut microbiota (GM) between patients with AD spectrum (including mild cognitive impairment [MCI] and AD) and healthy controls (HC). Data sources PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library from January 2000 to August 2021. Eligibility criteria for study selection: Observational trials and pre-intervention data of intervention trials that investigated the abundance of GM in patients with AD spectrum and HC. Data extraction and synthesis Two reviewers independently identified articles, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias. The effect sizes were performed by a random-effect, inverse-variance weighted model. The effects of different countries and of clinical stages on GM abundance were also examined. Results 11 studies consisting of 378 HC and 427 patients with AD spectrum were included in the meta-analysis. Patients with AD, but not MCI, showed significantly reduced GM diversity as compared to HC. We also found more abundance of Proteobacteria , Bifidobacterium and Phascolarctobacterium , but less abundance of Firmicutes , Clostridiaceae , Lachnospiraceae and Rikenellaceae in patients with AD spectrum as compared with HC. The profiles of abundance of Alistipes and Bacteroides in HC and AD spectrum were differentially affected by countries. Finally, when considering clinical stage as a moderator, the comparisons of abundance in Clostridiaceae and Phascolarctobacterium showed large effect sizes, with gradient changes from MCI to AD stage. Limitations The inclusion of studies originating only from China and the U.S. was a possible limitation. Conclusions Patients with AD spectrum demonstrated altered GM abundance, which was differentially mediated by countries and clinical stages.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 79/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 2 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 2 of 2. 46 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 79 of 100. Total 79 of 100.46 of the 58 points we could judge = 79 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. Scored zero for effect reported because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 79 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Aging)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 12 / 12 A systematic review of all the studies on the question
Strength of evidence 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 3 / 5 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 2 / 4 427 participants
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 35027502)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 46 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 79 out of 100.
Total 79 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Hung, C. C., Chang, C. C., Huang, C. W., Nouchi, R., & Cheng, C. H. (2022). Gut microbiota in patients with Alzheimer's disease spectrum: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging. https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.203826

Vancouver

Hung CC, Chang CC, Huang CW, Nouchi R, Cheng CH. Gut microbiota in patients with Alzheimer's disease spectrum: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aging. 2022. doi:10.18632/aging.203826. PMID: 35027502.

BibTeX

@article{hung2022-35027502,
  author  = {Hung, C. C. and Chang, C. C. and Huang, C. W. and Nouchi, R. and Cheng, C. H.},
  title   = {{Gut microbiota in patients with Alzheimer's disease spectrum: a systematic review and meta-analysis}},
  journal = {Aging},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.18632/aging.203826},
  pmid    = {35027502},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.203826}
}

Related studies in Disease mechanisms

Similar studies

More on Disease mechanisms

See all studies in Disease mechanisms →