Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35965832›Full record

ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022

Efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation for the induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Zheng-Jie Wei, Hai-Bin Dong, Yu-Tang Ren, Bo Jiang

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zheng-Jie WeiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Hai-Bin DongDepartment of Gastroenterology, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Yu-Tang RenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Bo JiangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Beijing Tsinghua Chang Gung Hospital · CNTsinghua University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is a novel management strategy for ulcerative colitis (UC). However, its effectiveness remains controversial. This study sought to assess the effectiveness of FMT in the treatment of active UC by performing a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We searched the Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases from their inception to December 2021. RCTs that recruited patients with active UC and treated them with FMT, a placebo or a suitable comparator were included in the meta-analysis. PICOS: Patients, active UC; Intervention, FMT; Control, placebo or a suitable comparator; Outcomes, remission rate; Studies, RCTs. The risk of bias assessment was performed with Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (version 2). Meta-analyses of risk ratios (RRs) were performed to estimate the differences in remission rates and the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) between the FMT-treated and control patients. Results: A total of 9 RCTs comprising 425 UC patients (213 FMT and 212 control) were included in the meta-analysis. The risk of bias was low in these RCTs. Clinical remission was observed in 86 of the 213 patients in the FMT groups and 47 of the 212 patients in the control groups [RR: 1.84; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.37, 2.47; P<0.0001]. Clinical remission was better when the FMT delivery route was via the lower gut, the FMT dose was >300 grams, and the fecal specimen from multiple donors. Endoscopic remission (observed in 7 RCTs) was achieved in 33 of the 195 FMT-treated patients compared to 17 of the 194 control patients (RR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.14, 3.31; P=0.01). SAEs were reported in 22 of the 213 FMT-treated patients but only 11 of the 212 control patients (RR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.03, 4.09; P=0.04). Discussion: FMT is an effective treatment for patients with active UC. Significantly higher clinical and endoscopic remission rates are observed with FMT than with control treatments. However, FMT may cause a significantly higher incidence of SAEs than control treatments. Future studies should delineate the effects of donor selection, dosage, delivery route, and antibiotic pretreatment and should evaluate the safety profile of FMT.

Indexed as

Fecal microbiota transplantmeta-analysisrandomized controlled trials (RCTs)remissionulcerative colitis (UC)

Identifiers

PMID35965832
PMCPMC9372650
OpenAlexW4288494219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.