Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35947590›Full record

ReviewPloS one2022

History of fecal transplantation; camel feces contains limited amounts of Bacillus subtilis spores and likely has no traditional role in the treatment of dysentery.

Nienke Koopman, Pim van Leeuwen, Stanley Brul, Jurgen Seppen

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Microbiota-Based Live Biotherapeutic Products forInfection and drug resistance · 2024
    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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nienke KoopmanSwammerdam Institute for Life Sciences (SILS)-University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pim van LeeuwenSwammerdam Institute for Life Sciences (SILS)-University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Stanley BrulSwammerdam Institute for Life Sciences (SILS)-University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jurgen SeppenTytgat Institute for Liver and Intestinal Research, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9689-9919
Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA widely cited story on the origins of fecal transplantation suggests that German soldiers in North Africa used camel feces containing Bacillus subtilis to treat dysentery in World War 2. We investigated if this story is accurate and if there is sufficient Bacillus subtilis in camel feces to be potentially therapeutic. METHODS AND

resultsA literature analysis shows that all references to the story are based on a single review paper that mentions the use of camel feces in passing and only provides indirect evidence for this claim. An extensive literature search failed to find independent evidence that camel feces has traditionally been used in the treatment of dysentery in North Africa. With 16S sequence analysis we did not detect Bacillus subtilis in feces from two different Egyptian camels. Using a more sensitive culture-based assay we could detect low amounts of Bacillus subtilis spores in these fecal samples, with comparable concentrations to those present in human feces and soil.

conclusionsBecause we could not find evidence for the use of camel feces in the treatment of diarrhea and because we show that only low amounts of Bacillus subtilis spores are present in camel feces, we conclude that the use of camel feces should no longer be mentioned in the context of origins of fecal transplantation.

Indexed as

Bacillus subtilisDysenteryAnimalsCamelusFecal Microbiota TransplantationFecesHumansSpores, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID35947590
PMCPMC9365175
OpenAlexW4291285781

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.