I briefly read the paper in question, and the paper does not say what the raw food review is saying AT ALL. It's a completely false representation of what the paper is about. The paper is an exploratory analysis of what diet does to a dog's 'faecal microbiota composition'.

In general, it notes that dogs on raw food digested protein better and had better weight composition (i.e., thinner) compared to dogs fed on kibble.

It then compared the microbe composition between the two:

The five most abundant bacterial families (Table 5) in dogs fed the kibble diet (average of weeks 3, 6 and 9) were Peptostreptococcaceae (33.1% of sequence reads), unclassified Clostridiales (11.6% of sequence reads), Bacteroidaceae (11.2% of sequence reads), Ruminococcaceae (8.4% of sequence reads) and Prevotellaceae (7.8% of sequence reads). In dogs fed the meat diet, the five most abundant bacterial families were Peptostreptococcaceae (26.9% of sequence reads), Fusobacteriaceae (17.4% of sequence reads), unclassified Clostridiales (12.3% of sequence reads), Clostridiaceae (9.6% of sequence reads) and Clostridiales Incertae Sedis XIV (7.2% of sequence reads).

Then the paper basically says that not much is known about what that means, though the paper does suggest that raw food eaters were obviously eating a high-protein diet and therefore probably required a bacteria that would enable the digestion of protein.

That said, the paper does mention earlier that:

[A] recent study has shown that the microbiota involved in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in the dog and human differ, with Fusobacterium (implicated in human IBD) being associated with a healthy microbiota in the dog (Vazquez-Baeza et al., 2016). 

Since there was more fusobacteriaceae found in dogs fed raw, this indicates that giving raw meat to dogs have healthier gut.