Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28569156›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2017

How Chinese clinicians face ethical and social challenges in fecal microbiota transplantation: a questionnaire study.

Yonghui Ma, Jinqiu Yang, Bota Cui, Hongzhi Xu, Chuanxing Xiao, Faming Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Awareness and acceptability of gut microbiome transfer.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Fecal microbiota transplantation: Current status and challenges in China.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2018
    Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yonghui MaCenter for Bioethics, Medical College, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China. yhma@xmu.edu.cn.
Jinqiu YangDepartment of Nursing, Medical College, Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Bota CuiMedical Center for Digestive Diseases, Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Hongzhi XuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Xiamen Zhongshan Hospital Affiliated to Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Chuanxing XiaoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Xiamen Zhongshan Hospital Affiliated to Xiamen University, Xiamen, China.
Faming ZhangMedical Center for Digestive Diseases, Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University · CNXiamen University · CNZhongshan Hospital of Xiamen University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is reportedly the most effective therapy for relapsing Clostridium Difficile infection (CDI) and a potential therapeutic option for many diseases. It also poses important ethical concerns. This study is an attempt to assess clinicians' perception and attitudes towards ethical and social challenges raised by fecal microbiota transplantation.

methodsA questionnaire was developed which consisted of 20 items: four items covered general aspects, nine were about ethical aspects such as informed consent and privacy issues, four concerned social and regulatory issues, and three were about an FMT bank. This was distributed to participants at the Second China gastroenterology and FMT conference in May 2015. Basic descriptive statistical analyses and simple comparative statistical tests were performed.

resultsNearly three quarters of the 100 respondents were gastro-enterologist physicians. 89% of all respondents believed FMT is a promising treatment modality for some diseases and 88% of whom chose clinical efficacy as the primary reason for recommending FMT. High expectation from patients and pressure on clinicians (33%) was reported as the most frequent reasons for not recommending FMT. The clinicians who had less familiarity with FMT reported significantly more worry related to the dignity and psychological impact of FMT compared to those who have high familiarity with FMT (51.6% vs 27.8%, p = 0.021).More than half of the respondents (56.1%) were concerned about the commercialization of FMT, although almost one in five respondents did not see this as a problem.

conclusionsWe found most respondents have positive attitudes towards FMT but low awareness of published evidence. Informed consent for vulnerable patients, privacy and protection of donors were perceived as the most challenging ethical aspects of FMT. This study identified areas of limited knowledge and ways of addressing ethical issues and indicates the need to devise the education and training for clinicians on FMT.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelBioethical IssuesFecal Microbiota TransplantationPhysician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansAwarenessChinaClostridium InfectionsEmotionsGastroenterologistsGastroenterologyHumansInformed ConsentPrivacySurveys and QuestionnairesTissue DonorsFecal microbiota transplantationInformed consentResearch ethicsRisk benefit evaluation

Identifiers

PMID28569156
PMCPMC5452366
OpenAlexW2617469153

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.