ArticleAlimentary pharmacology & therapeutics2025
Impact of Clinical and Pharmacological Parameters on Faecal Microbiota Transplantation Outcome in Clostridioides difficile Infections: Results of a 5-Year French National Survey.
Article in Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Molecular Mechanisms of Gut Microbiota-Immune System Crosstalk: From Mucosal Architecture to Adaptive Immunity Programming.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Advance Microbiota Transplantation: A Novel Addition-Subtraction Paradigm for Optimising Faecal Microbiota Transplantation.Microbial biotechnology · 2026Review
- Targeting the gut microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease: from concept to clinical reality.Intestinal research · 2025Review
- Role of Gut Microbiota and Metabolite Remodeling on the Development and Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Narrative Review.Veterinary 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDetailed comparative assessment of procedure-related factors associated with faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) efficacy in Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is limited.
aimsWe took advantage of the differences in procedures at the various French FMT centres to determine clinical and procedure-related factors associated with FMT success in CDI.
methodsWe performed a nationwide retrospective multicentre cohort study. All FMTs performed within The French Faecal Transplant Group for CDI from 2018 to 2022 were included. Clinical data were collected retrospectively from recipient medical files, characteristics of stool transplant preparations were prospectively collected by each Pharmacy involved. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using Fisher's test and multiple logistic regression.
resultsSix hundred fifty-eight FMTs were performed for 617 patients in 17 centres. The overall efficacy of FMT was 84.3% (520/617), with 0.5% of severe adverse events possibly related to FMT (3/658). Forty-seven patients were treated at the first recurrence of CDI with a similar success rate (85.1%). Severe chronic kidney disease (CKD; OR: 2.18, 95%CI [1.20-3.88]), non-severe refractory CDI (OR: 15.35, [1.94-318.2]), the use of ≥ 80% glycerol (OR: 2.52, [1.11-5.67]), insufficient bowel cleansing (OR: 5.47, [1.57-20.03]) and partial FMT retention (OR: 9.97, [2.62-48.49]) were associated with CDI recurrence within 8 weeks.
conclusionsConditions of transplant manufacturing, bowel cleansing, and a route of delivery tailored to the patient's characteristics are key factors in optimising FMT efficacy. FMT at first recurrence showed high success in real-life practice, whereas it had lower efficacy in severe CDI and non-severe refractory CDI.
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.