Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31354831›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of microbiology2019

Efficacy of Routine Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Treatment of Recurrent

Alexandra Nowak, Magnus Hedenstierna, Johan Ursing, Christer Lidman, Piotr Nowak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors.

Alexandra NowakDepartment of Nephrology, Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge, Huddinge, Sweden.
Magnus HedenstiernaDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Danderyds Hospital, Danderyd, Sweden.
Johan UrsingDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Danderyds Hospital, Danderyd, Sweden.
Christer LidmanDepartment of Medicin Huddinge, Unit of Infectious Diseases, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Sweden.
Piotr NowakDepartment of Medicin Huddinge, Unit of Infectious Diseases, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-2747-0734

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with recurrent

methodsMedical records of all patients with recurrent CDI treated with FMT during the period 2013-2017 were reviewed. We evaluated cure of CDI-related diarrhea without relapse 10 weeks after FMT.

results47 patients were included. One treatment cured 25 patients (53%), and more than one treatment cured 32 patients (68%). Treatment outcome did not vary significantly with treatment with fresh donor feces or frozen fecal culture, days of use of antibiotics or days of hospitalization prior to CDI, and renal function or time from the first CDI to therapy. Treatment failure was associated with a significantly lower Karnofsky performance status score (70 points vs 90,

conclusionFecal instillation, for the treatment of relapsing CDI, is a promising approach, with 68% success rate reported in this study. The success rate of FMT is high, regardless of multiple comorbidities, extended use of antibiotics, or long time hospitalization. Although generally FMT is performed with fresh donor feces, our data show that the usage of frozen fecal culture could be an effective treatment alternative in recurrent CDI.

Identifiers

PMID31354831
PMCPMC6636641

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.