Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39484168›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2024

Comparative effectiveness of treatments for recurrent

Hong Duo, Yanwei Yang, Guqing Zhang, Yingxin Chen, Yumeng Cao, Linjie Luo, Huaqin Pan, Qifa Ye

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Clinical management ofEClinicalMedicine · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Prevention of recurrentTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
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

8 authors.

Hong Duo *Hubei Key Laboratory of Medical Technology on Transplantation, National Quality Control Center for Donated Organ Procurement, Hubei Clinical Research Center for Natural Polymer Biological Liver, Hubei Engineering Center of Natural Polymer-Based Medical Materials, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Institute of Hepatobiliary Diseases of Wuhan University, Transplant Center of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
Yanwei Yang *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Clinical Research Center of Hubei Critical Care Medicine, Wuhan, China.
Guqing Zhang *Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Yingxin ChenGlobal Health Institute, School of Public Health, Xi'an Jiaotong University Health Science Center, Xi'an, China.
Yumeng CaoDepartment of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Linjie LuoDepartment of Experimental Radiation Oncology and Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, United States.
Huaqin PanZhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Institute of Hepatobiliary Diseases of Wuhan University, Transplantation Intensive Care Unit, Transplant Center of Wuhan University, Hubei Key Laboratory of Medical Technology on Transplantation, Wuhan, China.
Qifa YeHubei Key Laboratory of Medical Technology on Transplantation, National Quality Control Center for Donated Organ Procurement, Hubei Clinical Research Center for Natural Polymer Biological Liver, Hubei Engineering Center of Natural Polymer-Based Medical Materials, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Institute of Hepatobiliary Diseases of Wuhan University, Transplant Center of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is the most common cause of healthcare-associated infectious diarrhea. A major clinical challenge is recurrent CDI (rCDI) without effective standard drug-based therapy. Additionally, a comprehensive comparison of various therapy effectiveness in rCDI patients is still under investigation. Methods: A Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized control trials up to March 2024 was performed to investigate the efficacy of rCDI interventions. Results: Seventeen trials were included, comprising 4,148 CDI patients with ten interventions, including fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) by lower gastrointestinal (LGI), FMT by upper gastrointestinal (UGI), Autologous FMT (AFMT), vancomycin + FMT, vancomycin, placebo, fidaxomicin, Vowst (SER109), Rebyota (RBX2660), and monoclonal antibody. NMA showed that FMT by LGI had the highest efficacy in treating rCDIs with an odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 32.33 (4.03, 248.69) compared with placebo. FMT by UGI also showed high efficacy, whereas the efficacy comparison between FMT by LGI and UGI was not statistically significant (ORs) (95% CI), 1.72 (0.65, 5.21). The rankogram and surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) also showed FMT by LGI ranked at the top and FMT by UGI ranked second in the curative effect. Conclusion: NMA demonstrates FMT's significant efficacy in rCDI management, regardless of administration route (lower or upper gastrointestinal). Despite its significant benefits, FMT's safety is a concern due to the lack of standardized FDAcompliant manufacturing and oversight. Microbiota-based therapies also exhibit potential. However, limited research mandates further clinical exploration. Antibiotics, in contrast, display comparatively reduced efficacy in rCDI, potentially linked to disruptions in native gut microflora balance. Systematic Review: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=368435, Identifier CRD42022368435.

Indexed as

Clostridioides difficilefecal microbiota transplantationinfectionnetwork meta-analysisrandomized controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID39484168
PMCPMC11525118

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.