Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28158276›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2017

Fecal microbiota transplantation in patients with slow-transit constipation: A randomized, clinical trial.

Hongliang Tian, Xiaolong Ge, Yongzhan Nie, Linfeng Yang, Chao Ding, Lynne V McFarland, Xueying Zhang, Qiyi Chen, Jianfeng Gong, Ning Li

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
10.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

82 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 127 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Gut-brain axis in health and brain disease.Chinese medical journal · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Hongliang TianDepartment of General Surgery, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.
Xiaolong GeDepartment of General Surgery, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.
Yongzhan NieInstitute of Digestive Diseases, Xi Jing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'An, China.
Linfeng YangBGI-Shenzhen, Shenzhen, China.
Chao DingDepartment of General Surgery, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.
Lynne V McFarlandDepartment of Medicinal Chemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States of America.
Xueying ZhangDepartment of General Surgery, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.
Qiyi ChenDepartment of General Surgery, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.
Jianfeng GongDepartment of General Surgery, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.
Ning LiDepartment of General Surgery, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, China.
Nanjing University · CNNanjing General Hospital of Nanjing Military Command · CNAir Force Medical University · CNBGI Group (China) · CNUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fecal microbiota transplantation has been proposed as a therapeutic approach for chronic constipation. This randomized, controlled trial aimed to compare the effects of conventional treatment alone (control) with additional treatment with FMT (intervention) in patients with slow-transit constipation (STC). Adults with STC were randomized to receive intervention or control treatment. The control group received education, behavioral strategies, and oral laxatives. The intervention group was additionally provided 6 days of FMT. The primary endpoint was the clinical cure rate (proportion of patients achieving a mean of ≥ three complete spontaneous bowel movements [CSBMs] per week]. Secondary outcomes and safety parameters were assessed throughout the study. Sixty patients were randomized to either conventional treatment alone (n = 30) or FMT (n = 30) through a nasointestinal tube. There were significant differences between the intervention group and control group in the clinical improvement rate (intention-to-treat [ITT]: 53.3% vs. 20.0%, P = 0.009), clinical cure rate (ITT: 36.7% vs. 13.3%, P = 0.04), mean number of CSBMs per week (ITT: 3.2 ± 1.4 vs. 2.1 ± 1.2, P = 0.001), and the Wexner constipation score (ITT: 8.6 ± 1.5 vs. 12.7 ± 2.5, P < 0.00001). Compared with the control group, the intervention group showed better results in the stool consistency score (ITT: 3.9 vs. 2.4, P < 0.00001) and colonic transit time (ITT: 58.5 vs. 73.6 h, P < 0.00001). The intervention group had more treatment-related adverse events than did the control group (50 vs. 4 cases). FMT was significantly more effective (30% higher cure rate) for treatment of STC than conventional treatment. No serious adverse events were observed.

Indexed as

Fecal Microbiota TransplantationAdultAgedConstipationFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeWorkflow

Identifiers

PMID28158276
PMCPMC5291446
OpenAlexW2583288609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.