ArticleGastroenterology research2018
Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in the Treatment of
Article in Gastroenterology research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metagenomic and bile acid metabolomic analysis of fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridiodes difficile and/or inflammatory bowel diseases.Medical research archives · 2022Article
- Efficacy and Outcomes of Faecal Microbiota Transplantation for Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection in Children with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.Journal of Crohn's & colitis · 2022Article
- Fecal Microbiota Transplant in Recurrent Clostridium Difficile Infections: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2022Review
- Article
- Regulation, risk and safety of Faecal Microbiota Transplant.Infection prevention in practice · 2020Review
- Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for RecurrentGastroenterology research · 2020Article
- Clinical Review on the Utility of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Immunocompromised Patients.Current gastroenterology reports · 2019Review
- Adverse events in fecal microbiota transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
methodsA single center long-term follow-up study was conducted to evaluate the outcomes of FMT in patients with and without IBD. Prior to FMT data including demographics, prior treatment of CDI and severity of symptoms were gathered via chart review. Post FMT, all patients were surveyed after 2 days, 30 days and > 1 year to assess clinical and laboratory response. Our study outcomes included primary cure rate (negative CDI testing > 1 year after single FMT), and secondary cure rate (negative CDI testing > 1 year after repeat FMT or after an additional course of antibiotic with or without repeat FMT).
resultsSeventy-eight patients with recurrent or refractory CDI and subsequent FMT treatment were included. Mean age was 57 years, and 69% were females and twenty-one (27%) had IBD. Primary cure rate was achieved in 77% of the cases while secondary cure rate reached 100% at the end of the study. IBD patients were younger with an average age of 47 years, and had more complains of abdominal pain (71%), and required escalation of therapy in 50% of patients.
conclusionsFMT was effective in the eradication of CDI in patients with and without IBD, but with no significant symptoms improvement in patients with IBD. Future randomized control studies are needed to examine the long-term progression of IBD and quality of life in patients treated with FMT compared to standard therapy of antibiotics for recurrent CDI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.