Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37346153›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of gastroenterology2023

Fecal microbiota transplantation for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sofie Ingdam Halkjær, Bobby Lo, Frederik Cold, Alice Højer Christensen, Savanne Holster, Julia König, Robert Jan Brummer, Olga C Aroniadis, Perttu Lahtinen, Tom Holvoet and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
7.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Sofie Ingdam HalkjærGastro Unit, Medical Division, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre 2650, Denmark.
Bobby LoGastro Unit, Medical Division, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre 2650, Denmark.
Frederik ColdGastro Unit, Medical Division, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre 2650, Denmark.
Alice Højer ChristensenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Aleris-Hamlet Hospitals Copenhagen, Søborg 2860, Denmark.
Savanne HolsterNutrition-Gut-Brain Interactions Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro 70362, Sweden.
Julia KönigNutrition-Gut-Brain Interactions Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro 70362, Sweden.
Robert Jan BrummerNutrition-Gut-Brain Interactions Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Medical Sciences, Örebro University, Örebro 70362, Sweden.
Olga C AroniadisDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Renaissance School of Medicine, Stony Brook University Hospital, New York, NY 11794-8434, United States.
Perttu LahtinenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Päijät-Häme Central Hospital, Lahti 15850, Finland.
Tom HolvoetDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Ghent, Ghent 9000, Belgium.
Lise Lotte GluudGastro Unit, Medical Division, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre 2650, Denmark.
Andreas Munk PetersenGastro Unit, Medical Division, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre 2650, Denmark.
Örebro University · SECopenhagen University Hospital · DKHvidovre Hospital · DKAleris Hamlet Hospital · DKGhent University Hospital · BEPäijät-Hämeen Keskussairaala · FIStony Brook University Hospital · USUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIrritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is the most prevalent gastrointestinal disorder in developed countries and reduces patients' quality of life, hinders their ability to work, and increases health care costs. A growing number of trials have demonstrated an aberrant gut microbiota composition in IBS, also known as 'gut dysbiosis'. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been suggested as a treatment for IBS.

aimTo assess the efficacy and safety of FMT for the treatment of IBS.

methodsWe searched Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science up to 24 October 2022 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of FMT compared to placebo (including autologous FMT) in treating IBS. The primary outcome was the number of patients with improvements of symptoms measured using a validated, global IBS symptoms score. Secondary outcomes were changes in quality-of-life scores, non-serious and serious adverse events. Risk ratios (RR) and corresponding 95%CI were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, as were the mean differences (MD) and 95%CI for continuous outcomes. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of the trials. GRADE criteria were used to assess the overall quality of the evidence.

resultsEight RCTs (484 participants) were included in the review. FMT resulted in no significant benefit in IBS symptoms three months after treatment compared to placebo (RR 1.19, 95%CI: 0.68-2.10). Adverse events were reported in 97 participants in the FMT group and in 45 participants in the placebo group (RR 1.17, 95%CI: 0.63-2.15). One serious adverse event occurred in the FMT group and two in the placebo group (RR 0.42, 95%CI: 0.07-2.60). Endoscopic FMT delivery resulted in a significant improvement in symptoms, while capsules did not. FMT did not improve the quality of life of IBS patients but, instead, appeared to reduce it, albeit non significantly (MD -6.30, 95%CI: -13.39-0.79). The overall quality of the evidence was low due to moderate-high inconsistency, the small number of patients in the studies, and imprecision.

conclusionWe found insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of FMT for IBS. Larger trials are needed.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeIrritable Bowel SyndromeDysbiosisFecal Microbiota TransplantationHumansQuality of LifeFecal microbiota transplantationIrritable bowel syndromeMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37346153
PMCPMC10280798
OpenAlexW4378220627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.