Cited by 27Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchGut microbiota and healthGastrointestinal motility and disorders

Fecal microbiota transplantation for Clostridium difficile infection: benefits and barriers

Lo Vecchio, Andrea, Cohen, Mitchell B.·2014·Current Opinion in Gastroenterology

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The incidence and severity of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) have increased worldwide in the past two decades. A principal function of the gut microbiota is to protect the intestine against colonization by exogenous pathogens. Increasingly, the gut microbiota have been shown to influence susceptibility to other genetic and environmentally acquired conditions. Transplantation of healthy donor fecal material in patients with CDI may re-establish the normal composition of the gut microbiota and has been shown to be effective in recurrent CDI. We intend to review the most recent data on fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) and critically discuss potential advantages and handicaps of this new therapeutic approach. RECENT FINDINGS: Evidence from case series and only one randomized clinical trial suggests that FMT is able to restore the wide diversity of microflora, improve C. difficile-related symptoms and prevent CDI recurrence. SUMMARY: FMT is a promising treatment option for serious and recurrent CDI, and current evidence (although weak) demonstrates consistent and excellent efficacy in clinical outcomes. However, many questions should be answered before it may be recommended as routine standard treatment. Mechanisms of action need to be better understood. Long-term follow-up studies are needed to determine long-lasting effects (including the association with autoimmune diseases).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mog.0000000000000023

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lo Vecchio, A., & Cohen, M. B.
Affiliations
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
Venue
Current Opinion in Gastroenterology
Published
2014-01
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
47-53
ISSN
0267-1379 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1979353822
Cited by
27
References
36
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 9
FWCI
0.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
Keywords
fecal microbiota transplantation, Clostridium difficile infection, recurrent Clostridium difficile infection, gut microbiota, microbiome diversity, mechanism of action, autoimmune disease, donor selection
MeSH terms
Enterocolitis, Pseudomembranous, Feces, Humans, Intestines, Recurrence, Tissue Transplantation, Treatment Outcome, Evidence-Based Medicine, Microbiota

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review