ReviewFrontiers in surgery2022
The evaluation of different types fecal bacteria products for the treatment of recurrent
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To determine the efficacy of different types of fecal microbiota transplantation for the treatment of recurrent clostridium difficile associated diarrhea (RCDAD). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China Biomedical Medicine (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and WanFang database. We also tracked the references found in systematic reviews of RCDAD treated with fecal microbiota transplantation. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of fecal microbiota transplantation with other methods for the treatment of RCDAD. The search period was from the date of inception of this treatment method to January 16, 2022. Two reviewers independently screened the published literature, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Systematic review and network meta-analysis were conducted using RevMan 5.4, Stata 16.0 and R 4.1.2 software. Results: Ten RCTs involving 765 patients were included in this network meta-analysis. The results showed that treatment with fresh fecal bacteria and frozen fecal bacteria were better than vancomycin, fresh vs. vancomycin [odds ratio, (OR) = 8.98, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) (1.84, 43.92)], frozen vs. vancomycin [OR = 7.44, 95% CI (1.39, 39.75)]. However, there were no statistically significant differences in cure rate [fresh vs. frozen: OR = 1.21, 95% CI (0.22, 6.77); fresh vs. lyophilized, OR = 1.95, 95% CI (0.20, 19.44); frozen vs. lyophilized, OR = 1.62, 95% CI (0.30, 8.85)]. The Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) indicated that fresh fecal bacteria were the best treatment for RCDAD. Conclusions: Fresh fecal bacteria are the best treatment of RCDAD, frozen fecal bacteria and lyophilized fecal bacteria can achieve the same effect. Fecal microbiota transplantation is worthy of clinical and commercial application.
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.