Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41997887›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of small animal practice2026

Clinical benefit of faecal microbiota transplantation administered via a single retention enema as an adjunctive treatment in dogs with chronic enteropathy: a randomised controlled trial.

F Allerton, M J Whittle, L Durkin, C Prior, M Trehy, H Swales, F Duplan, S Borgonovi, G Pinchbeck, I Gajanayake and 7 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial, Veterinary
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of small animal practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

17 authors.

F AllertonWillows Veterinary Centre & Referral Service, Solihull, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4856-3307
M J WhittleWaltham Petcare Science Institute, Melton Mowbray, UK.
L DurkinWaltham Petcare Science Institute, Melton Mowbray, UK.
C PriorWillows Veterinary Centre & Referral Service, Solihull, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5254-3205
M TrehyLondon Vet Specialists, London, UK.
H SwalesBridge Referrals, Boldon Colliery, UK.
F DuplanLangford Vets, Langford, UK.
S BorgonoviDWR Veterinary Specialists, Six Mile Bottom, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3879-741X
G PinchbeckInstitute of Infection, Veterinary & Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Leahurst, UK.
I GajanayakeWillows Veterinary Centre & Referral Service, Solihull, UK.
M DunningWillows Veterinary Centre & Referral Service, Solihull, UK.
T SparksWaltham Petcare Science Institute, Melton Mowbray, UK.
P WatsonWaltham Petcare Science Institute, Melton Mowbray, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4381-9388
G C A AmosWaltham Petcare Science Institute, Melton Mowbray, UK.
K McCallumDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
J BazelleDavies Veterinary Specialists, Higham Gobion, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6372-6875
A KentBlaise Veterinary Referral Hospital, Birmingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3680-5893

Funding

Linnaeus Veterinary Limited, which is part of Mars Veterinary Health, supported the cots of the Open Access Publication ChargesSmall Animal Society
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the clinical benefit of faecal microbiota transplantation administered via a single retention enema, as an adjunctive treatment in the management of dogs with chronic enteropathy. MATERIALS AND

methodsBlinded, randomised controlled trial. Dogs with chronic enteropathy (>3 weeks of small or mixed intestinal diarrhoea) were randomly allocated to either the faecal microbiota transplantation or standard treatment group (ratio 1:1) via blinded selection. Dogs in the standard treatment group had a diet change only, while dogs in the faecal microbiota transplantation group had a diet change and faecal microbiota transplantation. faecal microbiota transplantation was performed using fresh faecal material from donor dogs, screened for selected enteropathogens and administered via retention rectal enema. Outcomes measured included the Canine Inflammatory Bowel Disease Activity Index, faecal score and the owner's reported improvement. Group comparisons were made using Fisher's exact tests (owner-reported outcomes) and Kruskal-Wallis tests adjusted for ties (Canine Inflammatory Bowel Disease Activity Index and faecal score).

resultsForty-two dogs with chronic enteropathy (median Canine Inflammatory Bowel Disease Activity Index score 6 [range 4 to 11]) were included in the study. Twenty-five dogs were randomly assigned to receive faecal microbiota transplantation, while 17 dogs were allocated to standard treatment. A progressive improvement in stool consistency (reduced faecal score) was recorded over time for most dogs in both groups. By Day 90, the rates of owner-defined clinical improvement were 76% (CI 54% to 90%) in the faecal microbiota transplantation group and 73% (CI 40% to 92%) in the standard treatment group. No significant differences were evident between the two groups based on the proportion of owners that reported clinical improvement, Canine Inflammatory Bowel Disease Activity Index score or faecal score. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This study did not demonstrate a clear clinical benefit for adjunctive faecal microbiota transplantation via single retention enema in dogs with chronic enteropathy compared to diet change alone, although the small sample size means that a type II error cannot be excluded. The similar outcome for both groups supports high rates of food responsiveness among this cohort of chronic enteropathy dogs.

Indexed as

Dog DiseasesEnemaFecal Microbiota TransplantationInflammatory Bowel DiseasesAnimalsChronic DiseaseDiarrheaDogsFecesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID41997887
PMCPMC13539667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.