ArticleFrontiers in immunology2022
Research trends on clinical fecal microbiota transplantation: A biliometric analysis from 2001 to 2021.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gut microbiota in multiple sclerosis and animal models.The FEBS journal · 2025Review
- Dual regulatory effects of gut microbiota and their metabolites in rheumatoid arthritis: balancing pathogenic and protective mechanisms.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Bibliometric and visual analysis of RAN methylation in cardiovascular disease.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Numerous studies on fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) have been conducted in the past two decades. We aimed to assess the research trends and hotspots in the field of FMT through a quantitative method. Materials and Methods: The clinical studies of FMT published from 2001 to 2021 were extracted from the Web of Science database. We analyzed the countries, institutions, authors, and keywords of these articles and visually illustrated using VOSviewer and CiteSpace software. The current application of FMT in clinical practice, including indications, efficacy, adverse events, as well as its methodology, such as donor, delivery route, were also evaluated. Results: A total of 227 records were finally identified. The number and rate of annual publications increased gradually. The USA ranked highest in the number of publications. Harvard University was the most influential institution, and Digestive Diseases and Sciences was the most productive journal. Kassam Zain published the most papers, and the high-frequency keywords were mainly related to diseases and techniques. Healthy donors were the most widely used donors, and frozen stool had the highest frequency of use. The predominant delivery route was endoscopy followed by oral capsules and enema. FMT was most frequently performed for the treatment of recurrent Clostridium Difficile Infection. The overall efficacy of FMT was 76.88%, and the incidence of minor and severe adverse events were 11.63% and 1.59%, respectively. Conclusions: This study delineated a comprehensive landscape of the advancement in FMT field. Although in its infancy, FMT is a burgeoning option for the treatment of a variety of diseases associated with gut dysbiosis. To improve the efficacy and reduce adverse events, future studies are warranted to optimize the methodology of FMT.
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.