Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34206663›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021

Fecal Microbial Transplantation versus Mesalamine Enema for Treatment of Active Left-Sided Ulcerative Colitis-Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Jan Březina, Lukáš Bajer, Pavel Wohl, Dana Ďuricová, Pavel Hrabák, Aleš Novotný, Jana Koželuhová, Milan Lukáš, Jakub Mrázek, Kateřina Olša Fliegerová and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation BeyondJournal of Korean medical science · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jan BřezinaHepatogastroenterology Department, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-0440-9220
Lukáš BajerHepatogastroenterology Department, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-3815-3120
Pavel WohlHepatogastroenterology Department, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic.
Dana ĎuricováClinical and Research Centre for IBD ISCARE, 19000 Prague, Czech Republic.
Pavel Hrabák4th Department of Medicine-Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, 12808 Prague, Czech Republic.
Aleš Novotný4th Department of Medicine-Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, First Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and General University Hospital in Prague, 12808 Prague, Czech Republic.
Jana KoželuhováGastroenterology Department, I. Internal Clinic, University Hospital in Pilsen, 30100 Pilsen, Czech Republic.
Milan LukášClinical and Research Centre for IBD ISCARE, 19000 Prague, Czech Republic.
Jakub MrázekInstitute of Animal Physiology and Genetics of the Czech Academy of Science, v.v.i., 14220 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0003-1907-3333
Kateřina Olša FliegerováInstitute of Animal Physiology and Genetics of the Czech Academy of Science, v.v.i., 14220 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-9439-8168
Simona KvasnováInstitute of Animal Physiology and Genetics of the Czech Academy of Science, v.v.i., 14220 Prague, Czech Republic.
Mekadim ChahrazedInstitute of Animal Physiology and Genetics of the Czech Academy of Science, v.v.i., 14220 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-5793-3501
Jan MarešHepatogastroenterology Department, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-4727-3685
Julius ŠpičákHepatogastroenterology Department, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic.
Pavel DrastichHepatogastroenterology Department, Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, 14021 Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-5656-9242
Institute of Clinical and Experimental Medicine · CZCzech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics · CZCharles University · CZIscare I.V.F · CZ

Funding

Ministerstvo Zdravotnictví Ceské Republiky 16-27449A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsUlcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease. Fecal microbial transplantation (FMT) is a promising alternative treatment.

methodsThis multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial randomized patients with active left-sided UC (Mayo score 4-10) equally to FMT or 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) enemas. FMT enemas were administered five times in the first week and then once weekly for 5 weeks. 5-ASA enemas were administered daily for 2 weeks and then every other day. The primary study endpoint was clinical remission, with a total Mayo score ≤2 at week 12 with no subscore >1.

resultsSixty-one patients were screened; 45 were enrolled and randomized to FMT (

conclusionFMT is an effective treatment for left-sided UC and increased recipient microbiome diversity. Targeted microbiome modification may improve FMT efficacy. Further investigation is needed to guide donor and patient selection.

Indexed as

5-aminosalicylic acidfecal microbial transplantationulcerative colitis

Identifiers

PMID34206663
PMCPMC8268406
OpenAlexW3174617112

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.