Page 65 - Read Online
P. 65

Chen et al. Microbiome Res Rep 2025;4:8    https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/mrr.2024.44  Page 9 of 18

               Table 2. Quality assessment using the adapted NOS of all included articles
                               Selection  Selection  Selection  Selection  Comparability  Outcome  Outcome  Outcome
                Author, year                                                                          Total
                               1       2        3       4        1           1       2       3
                                *       *        *       *        **         *        *       *
                Arboleya et al.,   B   A        A       A        A           B       A       A        9
                2020 [31]
                          [36]          *        *       *        **         *        *       *
                Cong et al., 2017  E   A        A       A        A           B       A       A        8
                Ford et al., 2019 [33]  A *  A *  A *   A *      A **        B *     A *     A *      9
                            [19]  *     *        *       *        *          *        *       *
                Gregory et al., 2016  B  A      A       A        B           B       A       A        8
                                *       *        *       *        **         *        *       *
                Khumbare et al.,   A   A        A       A        A           B       A       A        9
                2022 [34]
                           [37]  *      *        *       *        **         *        *       *
                Morais et al., 2021  A  A       A       A        A           B       A       A        9
                Parra-Llorca et al.,   B *  A *  A *    A *      A **        B *     no FU   n.a.     7
                   [35]
                2018
                Piñeiro-Ramos et al.,   B *  A *  A *   A *      A **        B *     no FU   n.a.     7
                   [32]
                2021
               Scoring by means of letters and stars are further explained in Supplementary File 2. Maximum score is 9 stars. A study can be awarded a
               maximum of one star for each numbered item within the selection and outcome categories. A maximum of two stars can be given for
               comparability. NOS: Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; FU: follow-up; n.a.: not applicable.


               Taxonomy
               The primary taxonomy differences between groups from birth till PMA 36 weeks are summarized in Table 3
               and graphically depicted in Figure 3. Below are recurring differences mentioned across multiple studies,
               categorized by phylum, to illustrate commonalities in this heterogeneous section. The MOM group serves as
               a reference group in text, tables, and figures. No consistent differences at the taxonomic level were apparent
               between subgroup A and subgroup B. Therefore, no distinction between the subgroups was made in the
               text.                                               [32]


               Firmicutes
               Seven studies reported differences in the Firmicutes phylum at different taxonomic levels [19,32-37] .

               Ford et al., Morais et al., and Parra-Llorca et al. reported a higher abundance of Firmicutes at the phylum
               level [33,35,37]  in DHM-fed infants. Within the class Bacilli, two studies reported differences at the order
               level [19,36] , two studies reported differences at the family level [32,35] , and four studies reported differences at the
               genus level [33-35,37] . There are conflicting results at the order level, with Cong et al. stating a lower abundance
               of Lactobacillales and Bacillales at all three time points , whereas Gregory et al. stated the abundance of the
                                                             [36]
               two orders to be higher in DHM-fed infants . Within the reported outcomes in the class Bacilli, there are
                                                     [19]
               commonalities in the reported differences within the Staphylococcaceae family. Piñeiro-Ramos et al.
               reported higher abundances of the Staphylococcaceae family , and in the same direction, Parra-Llorca et
               al., Morais et al., and Ford et al. showed an increased abundance of the Staphylococcus genus [33,35,37] .

               Four studies stated differences at different taxonomic levels within the class Clostridia. Parra-Llorca et al.
               reported a higher abundance of the Clostridiaceae family  in DHM-fed infants. Khumbare et al. and Parra-
                                                               [35]
               Llorca et al. stated a higher abundance of the genus Clostridium, whereas only Morais et al. stated a lower
               abundance in the DHM cohorts [34-37] .


               Actinobacteria
               Seven studies reported consistent differences in the Actinobacteria phylum at different taxonomic
   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70