Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33106983›Full record

ArticleInfectious diseases and therapy2021

Fecal Microbiota Transplantation May Be the Best Option in Treating Multiple Clostridioides difficile Infection: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Fanni Dembrovszky, Noémi Gede, Zsolt Szakács, Péter Hegyi, Szabolcs Kiss, Nelli Farkas, Zsolt Molnár, Marcell Imrei, Dóra Dohos, Zoltán Péterfi

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Infectious diseases and therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04960306 (Fecal Filtrate Versus Conventional Microbiota Transplantation in the Treatment of Multiple Recurrent Clostridioides Difficile Infection), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT04960306 phase3unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Fecal Filtrate Versus Conventional Microbiota Transplantation in the Treatment of Multiple Recurrent Clostridioides Difficile Infection (FILTRATE): A Protocol of a Randomized, Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PecsRan2023 to 2025Enrolled238ConditionsClostridium Difficile Infection, Recurrent Clostridium Difficile InfectionArmsFecal filtrate transplantation, Conventional fecal microbiota transplantation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Comparative effectiveness of different therapies forThe Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
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.

Fanni DembrovszkyMedical School, Institute for Translational Medicine, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6953-3591
Noémi GedeMedical School, Institute for Translational Medicine, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Zsolt SzakácsMedical School, Institute for Translational Medicine, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7035-941X
Péter HegyiMedical School, Institute for Translational Medicine, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0399-7259
Szabolcs KissMedical School, Institute for Translational Medicine, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5032-866X
Nelli FarkasMedical School, Institute for Translational Medicine, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Zsolt MolnárMedical School, Institute for Translational Medicine, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1468-4058
Marcell ImreiMedical School, Institute for Translational Medicine, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.
Dóra DohosMedical School, Institute for Translational Medicine, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1634-6116
Zoltán PéterfiDivision of Infectious Diseases, First Department of Medicine, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary. peterfi.zoltan@pte.hu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9658-153X

Funding

European Regional Development Fund EFOP-3.6.2-16-2017-00006European Regional Development Fund GINOP-2.3.2-15-2016-00048
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionClostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium) infection (CDI) is the most common cause of healthcare-associated diarrhea with high mortality and recurrence rate; furthermore, the treatment of recurrent cases is a challenge. In this network meta-analysis, we aimed to compare all available therapies against multiple recurrent CDI (mrCDI) and rank them by efficacy.

methodsAfter a systematic search, randomized controlled trials (RCT) with any interventions against mrCDI were included. Data were extracted to the study database using Excel. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The primary outcome was the clinical cure of CDI and the secondary outcome was the recurrence of CDI. A Bayesian method was performed to investigate the efficacy rank order of therapies. We registered our protocol with the Prospero Center for Reviews and Dissemination (registration no. CRD42020160365).

resultsSix RCTs with seven interventions were included in the quantitative synthesis. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve values, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) after a short course of vancomycin therapy (83%) shows the highest efficacy for clinical cure. Tolevamer and vancomycin + FMT seemed to be the most effective in preventing recurrence (87% and 75%, respectively).

conclusionVancomycin + FMT is perhaps the most effective option for the treatment and prevention of mrCDI, while tolevamer is also effective in preventing recurrence.

Indexed as

CDIClostridioides difficile infectionFecal microbiota transplantationFMTMultiple recurrentNetwork meta-analysisTreatment

Identifiers

PMID33106983
PMCPMC7954965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.