Chronic kidney failure

Compared within 2 studies that had both: 347 people with chronic kidney failure and 180 healthy people. 109 microbes are less common in people with chronic kidney failure, and 79 more common.

A difference is an association: it doesn’t mean these microbes cause, prevent or treat chronic kidney failure.

Phylum

Searching opens both lists and shows only matching rows.

Less common in chronic kidney failure · 109

Strongest first, then the biggest gap · Each figure is 10 people Strongest first · Each figure is 10 people
  1. Faecalibacillus intestinalis in 2 studies Healthy 89% chronic kidney failure 59%
  2. Dorea longicatena in 2 studies Healthy 91% chronic kidney failure 62%
  3. Clostridium fessum in 2 studies Healthy 91% chronic kidney failure 62%
  4. Lacrimispora amygdalina in 2 studies Healthy 80% chronic kidney failure 47%
  5. Ruminococcus sp. AF13-28 in 2 studies Healthy 75% chronic kidney failure 41%

More common in chronic kidney failure · 79

Strongest first, then the biggest gap · Each figure is 10 people Strongest first · Each figure is 10 people
  1. Eisenbergiella massiliensis in 2 studies Healthy 4.4% chronic kidney failure 37%
  2. Anaerotignum lactatifermentans in 2 studies Healthy 0% chronic kidney failure 16%
  3. Thomasclavelia spiroformis in 2 studies Healthy 9.7% chronic kidney failure 41%
  4. Intestinimonas massiliensis (ex Afouda et al. 2020) in 2 studies Healthy 4.0% chronic kidney failure 29%
  5. [Clostridium] innocuum in 2 studies Healthy 35% chronic kidney failure 71%

As many carry these · 2 the amount differs

Strongest first, then the biggest gap · Each figure is 10 people Strongest first · Each figure is 10 people
  1. Mediterraneibacter gnavus in 2 studies Healthy 91% chronic kidney failure 93%

    Carriers have about twice as much, in 2 of 2 studies (0.18% → 0.41% of their gut microbes).

  2. Blautia wexlerae in 2 studies Healthy 98% chronic kidney failure 95%

    Carriers have more, in 2 of 2 studies (0.57% → 0.81% of their gut microbes).

Where these numbers come from

Studies
Only GMrepo projects that had people with the condition and healthy people, 10 or more of each. Numbers come from those studies, never from pooling.Sampled in China.
How common
The share of people whose sample has any of it, in the people with the condition and in the healthy people of those same studies. Tested within studies (Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel, corrected for testing many microbes); a difference counts when it is clear and meaningful (Cohen’s h of 0.2 or more).
Strength word
Counted by code from how many studies point the same way: Seen again and again (3 or more, none clearly the other way), Seen more than once (2, the majority), Seen once (1, listed last). Where studies disagree, a row isn’t listed.
Each study
Tap a row for every study’s own numbers, and for how much carriers have.
Analysis
Our analysis of GMrepo data. GMrepo on Data sources · Read the rules

Also compared · 319 microbes

Compared within studies that had both, but not listed above.

Studies disagree · 7

No meaningful difference · 312

PubMed · human studies and reviews first

Recent research

All research on it
  1. PubMed ↗
  2. PubMed ↗
  3. PubMed ↗
  4. PubMed ↗
  5. PubMed ↗

Source: PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine · 15 linked papers, last 10 years