ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Fecal microbiota transplantation for treatment of refractory or recurrent
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A narrative review on fecal microbiota transplantation routes in ulcerative colitis: identifying the optimal approach across key parameters.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- The Role of Akkermansia muciniphila in Disease Regulation.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2025Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Compared to antibiotic treatment, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is a more effective treatment for refractory or recurrent CDI (rCDI). Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have a higher incidence of CDI and worse outcomes. There has been no study from Asia to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of FMT for overall rCDI patients and rCDI patients with IBD. Methods: We applied a Markov model with deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of different treatments for rCDI patients with a time horizon of 1 year from the payer's perspective. We compared the cost and clinical outcomes of FMT through colonoscopy to two antibiotics (vancomycin and fidaxomicin) using data from Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan. Results: Compared to vancomycin, FMT was cost-effective in overall rCDI patients as well as IBD patients with rCDI [USD 39356 (NT$1,101,971.98)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained in overall patients; USD65490 (NT$1,833,719.14)/QALY gained in IBD patients]. Compared to fidaxomicin, FMT was only cost-effective in overall rCDI patients [USD20255 (NT$567,133.45)/QALY gained] but slightly increased QALY (0.0018 QALY gained) in IBD patients with rCDI. Conclusion: FMT is cost-effective, compared to vancomycin or fidaxomicin, for the treatment of rCDI in most scenarios from the payers' perspective in Taiwan.
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.