ArticleHealth economics review2025
Health economic evaluations of fecal microbiota transplantation for non-clostridioides difficile related diseases: a systematic review.
Article in Health economics review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical application of fecal microbiota transplantation and its influencing factors.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to conduct a systematic review on health economic evaluations of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for non-Clostridioides difficile infection (non-CDI) related diseases.
methodsA systematic search of literature was conducted up to October 2025 in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL Ultimate. Studies inclusion criteria were: (1) Non-CDI related diseases; (2) FMT as a treatment; (3) health economic evaluations; and (4) original research articles published in English. The quality of included studies was evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist.
resultsSix studies were included. All studies were conducted from the healthcare provider’s perspective, and one additionally considered the societal perspective. Three studies (50%) were cost analyses (n = 1 inflammatory bowel disease (IBD); n = 2 fecal donor screening for treatment of melanoma and metabolic syndrome-associated diseases), two (33%) were cost-effectiveness analyses (IBD), and one (17%) was cost-consequence analyses (urinary tract infection (UTI) caused by multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs)). The studies were classified as excellent (n = 1), very good (n = 2), and insufficient (n = 3). Four studies (67%) reported that FMT was a potentially cost-saving intervention for IBD (n = 3) and UTI (n = 1). One cost-effectiveness study of 3 FMT regimens for IBD treatment showed the number FMT administrations was influential to total treatment cost.
conclusionsThe included health economic evaluations of FMT for non-CDI related diseases are scarce and quality is diverse. The small number of analyses highlights the research gap of health economic evaluation of FMT for non-CDI related diseases with positive clinical benefits.
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.