Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40468650›Full record

ReviewClinical endoscopy2025

Fecal microbiota transplantation: present and future.

Ra Ri Cha, Irene Sonu

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Microbial dysbiosis in cholangiocarcinoma.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Microbiome and Long COVID-19: Current Evidence and Insights.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  20. 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

2 authors.

Ra Ri ChaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Gyeongsang National University Changwon Hospital, Gyeongsang National University College of Medicine, Jinju, Korea.
Irene SonuDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

Gyeongsang National University Fund
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) involves transplanting fecal matter from healthy donors into patients with gut dysbiosis to restore microbial balance. It has been proven to be highly effective in treating recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), and United States Food and Drug Administration-approved microbiome-based therapies, such as REBYOTA (fecal microbiota live-jslm) and VOWST (fecal microbiota spores live-brpk), offer promising treatment options. Although FMT is widely used to treat recurrent CDI, its use in gastrointestinal and metabolic diseases remains limited. Future research directions include optimizing donor selection, understanding microbial mechanisms, and exploring the potential of FMT for treating other diseases. Ongoing research not only aims to broaden its indications but also improves its safety and efficacy. Emerging therapies such as VE303 (Vedanta) are being studied to refine treatment approaches and expand the use of microbiota-based therapies. Further studies are needed to standardize guidelines, improve patient outcomes, and better define the role of FMT in the treatment of diseases beyond recurrent CDI.

Indexed as

Clostridioides difficile infectionFecal microbiota transplantationTherapeutics

Identifiers

PMID40468650
PMCPMC12138360

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.