Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35619175›Full record

ReviewGut pathogens2022

Adverse events of intestinal microbiota transplantation in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Chong Chen, Liyu Chen, Dayong Sun, Cailan Li, Shiheng Xi, Shihua Ding, Rongrong Luo, Yan Geng, Yang Bai

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gut pathogens, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Chong Chen *Department of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, Shenzhen, 518037, China.
Liyu Chen *Department of Gastroenterology, 923Th Hospital of PLA Joint Logistics Support Force, Nanning, 530021, China.
Dayong SunDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, Shenzhen, 518037, China.
Cailan LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, 923Th Hospital of PLA Joint Logistics Support Force, Nanning, 530021, China.
Shiheng XiDepartment of Gastroenterology, 923Th Hospital of PLA Joint Logistics Support Force, Nanning, 530021, China.
Shihua DingDepartment of Gastroenterology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, Shenzhen, 518037, China.
Rongrong LuoDepartment of Gastroenterology, 923Th Hospital of PLA Joint Logistics Support Force, Nanning, 530021, China.
Yan GengDepartment of Gastroenterology, 923Th Hospital of PLA Joint Logistics Support Force, Nanning, 530021, China. drggyn@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5124-6444
Yang BaiGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Gastroenterology, Department of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, 510515, China. 13925001665@163.com.
303 Hospital of People's Liberation Army · CNShenzhen Second People's Hospital · CNNanfang Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntestinal microbiota transplantation (IMT) has been recognized as an effective treatment for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (rCDI) and a novel treatment option for other diseases. However, the safety of IMT in patients has not been established.

aimsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the safety of IMT.

methodsWe systematically reviewed all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of IMT studies published up to 28 February 2021 using databases including PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Studies were excluded if they did not report adverse events (AEs). Two authors independently extracted the data. The relative risk (RR) of serious adverse events (SAEs) and common adverse events (CAEs) were estimated separately, as were predefined subgroups. Publication bias was evaluated by a funnel plot and Egger's regression test.

resultsAmong 978 reports, 99 full-text articles were screened, and 20 articles were included for meta-analysis, involving 1132 patients (603 in the IMT group and 529 in the control group). We found no significant difference in the incidence of SAEs between the IMT group and the control group (RR = 1.36, 95% CI 0.56-3.31, P = 0.50). Of these 20 studies, 7 described the number of patients with CAEs, involving 360 patients (195 in the IMT group and 166 in the control group). An analysis of the eight studies revealed that the incidence of CAEs was also not significantly increased in the IMT group compared with the control group (RR = 1.06, 95% CI  0.91-1.23, P = 0.43). Subgroup analysis showed that the incidence of CAEs was significantly different between subgroups of delivery methods (P

conclusionCurrently, IMT is widely used in many diseases, but its associated AEs should not be ignored. To improve the safety of IMT, patients' conditions should be fully evaluated before IMT, appropriate transplantation methods should be selected, each operative step of faecal bacteria transplantation should be strictly controlled, AE management mechanisms should be improved, and a close follow-up system should be established.

Indexed as

Adverse eventsIntestinal microbiota transplantationMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID35619175
PMCPMC9134705
OpenAlexW4281561442

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.