ArticleJournal of clinical gastroenterology
Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for C. difficile Infections Across Academic and Private Clinical Settings.
Article in Journal of clinical gastroenterology. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- The gut-pancreas axis: microbial dysbiosis as a pathogenic driver of diabetes and pancreatic cancer.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2026Review
- Preferred Reporting Items for Microbiotherapy (PRIM) Guidelines Across Medical Disciplines: An International Delphi Consensus.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2025Review
- The Next Generation Fecal Microbiota Transplantation: To Transplant Bacteria or Virome.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeFecal microbiota transplant (FMT) is increasingly performed for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), although long-term efficacy and safety data are limited and are focused on results from academic medical centers rather than private settings where most patients receive care.
methodsMedical records of 165 patients who received FMTs for CDI were reviewed from an academic medical center and an adjacent, unaffiliated private practice. Of these patients, 68 also completed a survey regarding their long-term disease course and interval health.
resultsCDI resolution occurred in 81.3% (100/123) at the academic center and 95.2% (40/42) in the private setting. Private practice patients were more likely to present with recurrent, rather than refractory, CDI (92.9% vs. 66.7% P <0.001). Those from the academic center were more likely to have comorbid IBD, recent hospitalization, recent proton pump inhibitor use, ongoing immunosuppression, and inpatient FMT (all P values <0.05).Among surveyed patients, 29.4% developed interval comorbidities or changes to pre-existing conditions after a median follow-up of 33.7 months (IQR 13.2 to 44.3 mo). Of 30 patients requiring subsequent antibiotics, 13.3% suffered CDI relapse. All subjects who had initially responded to FMT but had a subsequent CDI (17.9%, 10/56) responded to another FMT.
conclusionsIn a real-world setting, patients who underwent FMT at academic centers differed significantly in clinical characteristics from those treated at a private practice. In both settings, FMT is an effective treatment for CDI not responding to standard therapies, even after subsequent antibiotic use. New diagnoses following FMT, however, are common and merit further exploration.
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.