ArticlePloS one2023
Cytomegalovirus in donors for fecal microbiota transplantation, the phantom menace?
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02694484 (Search Cytomegalovirus), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Search Cytomegalovirus (CMV) in Healthy Volunteers Stools Samples Selected as Potential Donor for Fecal Microbiota Transplant
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- IntestinalBMJ open · 2024Article
- Fecal microbiota transplantation: current challenges and future landscapes.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) has become the preferred treatment for recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infections (CDI). However, donor screening is a complex process that varies between countries. The primary objective of screening is to prevent the transfer of potential pathogens from the donor to the recipient via feces. Many guidelines recommend Cytomegalovirus (CMV) testing as part of donor screening, but is the risk of CMV transmission well supported by evidence? MATERIALS/
methodsA French prospective cross-sectional multicenter single-arm study estimated the frequency of detection of CMV in the stool of voluntary healthy donors selected for FMT. All preselected donors were tested for CMV antibodies in blood, and if positive, CMV DNA PCR was performed on whole blood and stool. For samples CMV positive in stool PCR, or case of serological markers positive for IgM, we planned isolation of CMV in cell culture.
resultsFrom June 1, 2016, to July 31, 2017, 500 healthy donors (250 per center) were recruited and 483 included. Of these, 301 were CMV seronegative, and 182 tested positive for CMV IgM and/or IgG. Stool CMV PCR was performed in 162 donors. In two cases, the initial analysis was positive, but below the limit of quantification. Repeated PCR tests using Siemens and Altostar assays were negative. No infectious CMV could be detected in cell culture of these two samples and in the stool of 6 CMV IgM-positive donors.
conclusionsOur study shows that healthy volunteers with positive CMV serology do not shed CMV DNA in their stool, as detected by PCR or cell culture. This study provides another argument to remove CMV screening for FMT donors.
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.