Gut microbiota and lung injury (2015–2026): bibliometric and visualization analysis
Scientific output on gut microbiota and lung injury increased sharply after 2019, but the field remains dominated by mechanistic and preclinical studies with no consolidated clinical evidence.
| Population | Scientific literature indexed in WoSCC and Scopus (2015–May 2026) on gut microbiota and lung injury |
|---|---|
| Intervention | Bibliometric and co-citation analysis using VOSviewer, CiteSpace and Bibliometrix |
| Comparator | Not applicable (descriptive literature study) |
| Outcome | Publication volume and trends in the field; Geographic and institutional leadership (China / Fudan); Dominant thematic clusters (gut-lung axis, inflammation, sepsis); Predominance of preclinical studies in the field |
Summary of findings
| Outcome | Effect | 95% CI | Certainty | Clinical relevance | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Publication volume and trends in the field | descriptive increase post-2019; in the statistical effect size reported | — | Very low | — | |
| Geographic and institutional leadership (China / Fudan) | descriptive bibliometric ranking; in the effect size applicable | — | Very low | — | |
| Dominant thematic clusters (gut-lung axis, inflammation, sepsis) | keyword co-occurrence mapping; in the quantitative effect size | — | Very low | — | |
| Predominance of preclinical studies in the field | qualitative finding; in the statistical measure reported | — | Very low | — |
Context
Acute lung injury and ARDS carry 40–50% mortality in severe cases; specific therapies are lacking. The gut-lung axis hypothesis gained traction, but the knowledge structure of the field had not been systematically mapped.
What the study showed
Output grew markedly after 2019, with China and Fudan University leading national and institutional contributions. Frontiers in Immunology was the main publication and citation hub. Dominant thematic clusters were inflammation, gut-lung axis, immune regulation, mouse models and sepsis. Probiotics, short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) emerged as translational research foci, with no clinical efficacy data reported.
How it was done
Bibliometric analysis of publications indexed in Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus from 2015 to May 2026. Tools: VOSviewer (co-occurrence mapping), CiteSpace (burst detection and research fronts) and Bibliometrix (production indicators). No clinical inclusion criteria were applied; the object of study is the literature, not patients.
Effect magnitude
No measurable clinical effect size; the study tested no interventional hypothesis. The central quantitative finding is increased publication volume after 2019, with no effect statistics reported.
Risk of bias
Descriptive study; no risk-of-bias tool applicable (RoB 2, ROBINS-I or AMSTAR-2 are not relevant to bibliometrics). Limited to two databases (WoSCC and Scopus), excluding grey literature, independent PubMed/MEDLINE and non-indexed journals. Intrinsic publication bias: positive and high-impact studies are over-represented in citation analyses.
What this study does NOT prove
This study does not prove that gut microbiota causes, modifies or treats lung injury. It establishes no causality, efficacy or safety for any microbiome intervention in humans.
In clinical practice
This study generates no direct therapeutic recommendation. Clinicians should interpret the field as predominantly preclinical: no microbiota intervention for lung injury has RCT support sufficient to change clinical practice.
Limitations
Descriptive study; no risk-of-bias tool applicable (RoB 2, ROBINS-I or AMSTAR-2 are not relevant to bibliometrics). Limited to two databases (WoSCC and Scopus), excluding grey literature, independent PubMed/MEDLINE and non-indexed journals. Intrinsic publication bias: positive and high-impact studies are over-represented in citation analyses.
What is still missing
Multicentre RCTs testing gut microbiota interventions (probiotics, SCFAs, fecal microbiota transplant) in patients with acute lung injury or ARDS, using hard clinical endpoints (mortality, ventilator-free days).
Technical appendix
Version history
- 1.0 · 2026-10-31 — Auto-generated under Evidence Standard v1.0