Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34586011›Full record

GuidelineGut microbes

Guidelines for reporting on animal fecal transplantation (GRAFT) studies: recommendations from a systematic review of murine transplantation protocols.

Kate R Secombe, Ghanyah H Al-Qadami, Courtney B Subramaniam, Joanne M Bowen, Jacqui Scott, Ysabella Z A Van Sebille, Matthew Snelson, Caitlin Cowan, Gerard Clarke, Cassandra E Gheorghe and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readGuidelineSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Guideline in Gut microbes. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Gut Bacteria Improve Depressive Symptoms by Degrading Cortisol into Androgen.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The probioticGut microbes · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Kate R SecombeSchool of Biomedicine, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0716-238X
Ghanyah H Al-QadamiSchool of Biomedicine, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Courtney B SubramaniamSchool of Biomedicine, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Joanne M BowenSchool of Biomedicine, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Jacqui ScottSchool of Biomedicine, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Ysabella Z A Van SebilleUniSA Online, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Matthew SnelsonDepartment of Diabetes, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Caitlin CowanSchool of Psychology and Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Gerard ClarkeDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioural Science, Department of Anatomy and Neuroscience, and APC Microbiome Ireland, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Cassandra E GheorgheDepartment of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioural Science and APC Microbiome Ireland, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
John F CryanDepartment of Anatomy and Neuroscience and APC Microbiome Ireland, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-5887-2723
Hannah R WardillSchool of Biomedicine, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
The University of Adelaide · AUUniversity College Cork · IESouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute · AUMonash University · AUThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of South Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) is a powerful tool used to connect changes in gut microbial composition with a variety of disease states and pathologies. While FMT enables potential causal relationships to be identified, the experimental details reported in preclinical FMT protocols are highly inconsistent and/or incomplete. This limitation reflects a current lack of authoritative guidance on reporting standards that would facilitate replication efforts and ultimately reproducible science. We therefore systematically reviewed all FMT protocols used in mouse models with the goal of formulating recommendations on the reporting of preclinical FMT protocols. Search strategies were applied across three databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Ovid Medline) until June 30, 2020. Data related to donor attributes, stool collection, processing/storage, recipient preparation, administration, and quality control were extracted. A total of 1753 papers were identified, with 241 identified for data extraction and analysis. Of the papers included, 92.5% reported a positive outcome with FMT intervention. However, the vast majority of studies failed to address core methodological aspects including the use of anaerobic conditions (91.7% of papers lacked information), storage (49.4%), homogenization (33.6%), concentration (31.5%), volume (19.9%) and administration route (5.3%). To address these reporting limitations, we developed the

Indexed as

AnimalsClostridioides difficileClostridium InfectionsDisease Models, AnimalFecal Microbiota TransplantationGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansMiceFecal microbiome transplantationFMTguidelinesmethodologyreplicationreporting guidelinesreproducibility

Identifiers

PMID34586011
PMCPMC8489962
OpenAlexW3177547741

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.