ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2024
Efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation for treatment of ulcerative colitis: A post-consensus systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Recent Advancement of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in the Treatment of Ulcerative Colitis- A Review.Current medicinal chemistry · 2026Review
- Gut Microbiota Modulation in IBD: From the Old Paradigm to Revolutionary Tools.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNumerous studies have assessed the efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) as a therapy for ulcerative colitis (UC). However, the treatment processes and outcomes of these studies vary.
aimTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of FMT for treating UC by conducting a systematic meta-analysis.
methodsThe inclusion criteria involved reports of adult patients with UC treated with FMT, while studies that did not report clinical outcomes or that included patients with infection were excluded. Clinical remission (CR) and endoscopic remission (ER) were the primary and secondary outcomes, respectively.
resultsWe included nine studies retrieved from five electronic databases. The FMT group had better CR than the control group [relative risk (RR) = 1.53; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.19-1.94;
conclusionFMT demonstrates favorable performance and safety; however, well-designed randomized clinical trials are still needed before the widespread use of FMT can be recommended. Furthermore, standardizing the FMT process is urgently needed for improved safety and efficacy.
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.