SynthesisFrontiers in microbiology2026
Safety and efficacy of fecal microbial transplantation for the prevention and treatment of acute graft-versus-host disease: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In recent years, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has been increasingly investigated for the prevention and treatment of acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD). Nevertheless, its clinical efficacy remains uncertain. Therefore, this study aims to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of FMT in preventing and treating aGVHD. Methods: We systematically searched Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to October 2025 for studies comparing FMT with conventional regimens (corticosteroids and/or immunosuppressants) for aGVHD prevention and treatment. All statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4.1 and Stata 16. Results: Six studies involving 262 patients were included. Among them, 85 patients received FMT for aGVHD prevention, 65 received conventional prophylaxis, 68 received FMT for Gastrointestinal aGVHD (GI-aGVHD) treatment, and 44 received conventional treatment for GI-aGVHD. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the incidence of aGVHD between the FMT and conventional groups [odds ratio (OR) = 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.10-16.72, Conclusion: FMT showed favorable effects in improving clinical symptoms of GI-aGVHD and increasing the abundance of beneficial gut bacteria, and no increased risk of bloodstream infection was observed. These findings suggest that, for patients with established GI-aGVHD who may respond poorly to conventional regimens, FMT can serve as an effective adjunctive or salvage treatment. However, no significant advantage was observed for FMT in preventing aGVHD.
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.