ArticlePloS one2022
How to prepare stool banks for an appropriate response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic: Experiences in the Netherlands and a retrospective comparative cohort study for faecal microbiota transplantation.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Significant Increase inGastro hep advances · 2026Article
- Assuring safety of fecal microbiota transplantation in the COVID-19 era: A single-center experience.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023Article
- Economic and Chronologic Optimization of Fecal Donors Screening Process.MDM policy & practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFaecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an efficacious treatment for patients with recurrent Clostridioides difficile infections (rCDI). Stool banks facilitate FMT by providing screened faecal suspensions from highly selected healthy donors. Due to the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the potential risk of SARS coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission via FMT, many stool banks were forced to temporarily halt and adjust donor activities. GOAL: The evaluation of a strategy to effectively continue stool banking activities during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY: To restart our stool banking activities after an initial halt, we implemented periodic SARS-CoV-2 screening in donor faeces and serum, and frequent donor assessment for COVID-19 related symptoms. FMT donor and recipient data obtained before (2016-2019) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020-August 2021) were compared to assess stool banking efficacy.
resultsTwo out of ten donors developed COVID-19. No differences during versus before the COVID-19 pandemic were observed in the number of approved faeces donations (14 vs 22/month, p = 0.06), FMT requests for rCDI (3.9 vs 4.3/month, p = 0.6); rCDI patients eligible for FMT (80.6% vs 73.3%, p = 0.2); rCDI cure rate (90.3% vs 89.2%, p = 0.9); CDI-free survival (p = 0.7); the number of non-rCDI patients treated with FMT (0.5/month vs 0.4/month), and the number of possibly FMT related adverse events (9.5% vs 7.8%, p = 0.7). Two FMTs for rCDI were delayed due to COVID-19.
conclusionsThere is a continued need for FMT treatment of rCDI during the COVID-19 pandemic. Appropriate donor screening and SARS-CoV-2 infection prevention measures can be implemented in existing protocols without increasing the burden for donors, and allow safe, effective and efficient FMT during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Stool banks should evaluate their SARS-CoV-2 donor screening protocols for long-term sustainability and efficacy, and share their experiences to help the utilisation, standardisation and improvement of stool banks worldwide.
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.