Table 2.
Adapted Newcastle–Ottawa scale for case series.
| Study (year, country) | Selection (/1) | Ascertainment (/2) | Causality (/2) | Reporting (/1) | Total (/6)a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Enrichment of oral microbiota in early cystic precursors to invasive pancreatic cancer, Gaiser RA et al.43 (2019, Sweden) | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Microbiome patterns in matched bile, duodenal, pancreatic tumour tissue, drainage, and stool samples: association with preoperative stenting and postoperative pancreatic fistula development, Langheinrich M et al.44 (2020, Germany) | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 |
| Comparisons of oral, intestinal, and pancreatic bacterial microbiomes in patients with pancreatic cancer and other gastrointestinal diseases, Chung M et al.45 (2021, USA) | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 6 |
| Tumour microbiome contributes to an aggressive phenotype in the basal-like subtype of pancreatic cancer, Guo W et al.12 (2021, China) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
| Role of biliary stent and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the pancreatic tumour microbiome, Nalluri et al.46 (2021, USA) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
| Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy as a tool for studying the intra-tumoral microbiome in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a pilot study, Chu CS et al.47 (2022, China) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
| Analysis of the pancreatic cancer microbiome using endoscopic ultrasound–guided fine-needle aspiration–derived samples, Nakano S48 et al. (2022, Japan) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
| Impact of neoadjuvant therapy on gut microbiome in patients with resectable/borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, Takaori A et al.49 (2023, Japan) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
| Bacterial and fungal characterization of pancreatic adenocarcinoma from Endoscopic Ultrasound guided Biopsies, Wright et al.50 (2023, USA) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
| Gut Streptococcus is a microbial marker for the occurrence and liver metastasis of pancreatic cancer, Yang J et al.51 (2023, China) | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
a
Q1: Does the patient(s) represent(s) the whole experience of the investigator? Q2: Was the exposure adequately ascertained? Q3: Was the outcome adequately ascertained? Q4: Were other alternative causes that may explain the observation ruled out? Q7: Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur? Q8: Is the case(s) described with sufficient details to allow other investigators to replicate the research or to allow practitioners make inferences? (Questions 5 and 6 are relevant to cases of adverse drug events and were excluded)