Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37450947›Full record

SynthesisJournal of Crohn's & colitis2024

Faecal Microbiota Transplantation [FMT] in the Treatment of Chronic Refractory Pouchitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Shafquat Zaman, Akinfemi Akingboye, Ali Yasen Y Mohamedahmed, Elizabeth Peterknecht, Pratik Bhattacharya, Mohammed E El-Asrag, Tariq H Iqbal, Mohammed Nabil Quraishi, Andrew D Beggs

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of Crohn's & colitis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Shafquat ZamanInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Science, College of Medical and Dental Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Akinfemi AkingboyeDepartment of General Surgery, Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK.
Ali Yasen Y MohamedahmedDepartment of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1219-7571
Elizabeth PeterknechtDepartment of General Surgery, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals, Birmingham, UK.
Pratik BhattacharyaDepartment of General Surgery, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals, Birmingham, UK.
Mohammed E El-AsragInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Science, College of Medical and Dental Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Tariq H IqbalInstitute of Microbiology and Infection, College of Medical and Dental Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Mohammed Nabil QuraishiInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Science, College of Medical and Dental Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2338-8397
Andrew D BeggsInstitute of Cancer and Genomic Science, College of Medical and Dental Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0784-2967
Birmingham City University · GBSandwell & West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust · GBBenha University · EGRussells Hall Hospital · GBThe Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy and safety of faecal microbiota transplantation [FMT] in the treatment of chronic pouchitis.

methodsA PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using the following databases and clinical trial registers: Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [CENTRAL], clinical trials.gov, ScienceDirect, and VHL [virtual health library]. The primary outcome was clinical response/remission in patients treated with FMT. Secondary outcomes included safety profile, quality of life, and changes in the gut microbiome.

resultsSeven observational cohort studies/case series and two randomised, controlled trials with a total of 103 patients were included. The route, preparation, and quantity of FMT administered varied among the included studies. Clinical response rate of 42.6% with a remission rate of 29.8% was estimated in our cohort following FMT therapy. Minor, self-limiting, adverse events were reported, and the treatment was well tolerated with good short- and long-term safety profiles. Successful FMT engraftment in recipients varied and, on average, microbial richness and diversity was lower in patients with pouchitis. In some instances, shifts with specific changes towards abundance of species, suggestive of a 'healthier' pouch microbiota, were observed following treatment with FMT.

conclusionThe evidence for FMT in the treatment of chronic pouchitis is sparse, which limits any recommendations being made for its use in clinical practice. Current evidence from low-quality studies suggests a variable clinical response and remission rate, but the treatment is well tolerated, with a good safety profile. This review emphasises the need for rationally designed, well-powered, randomised, placebo-controlled trials to understand the efficacy of FMT for the treatment of pouchitis.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomePouchitisFecal Microbiota TransplantationFecesHumansQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRemission InductionTreatment OutcomeChronic pouchitisdysbiosisfaecal microbiota transplantationFMTmicrobiome

Identifiers

PMID37450947
PMCPMC10821709
OpenAlexW4384400804

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.