Cited by 203Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchGut microbiota and healthGastrointestinal motility and disorders

Efficacy of different faecal microbiota transplantation protocols for Clostridium difficile infection: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Open access
Ianiro, Gianluca, Maida, Marcello, Burisch, Johan, Simonelli, Claudia, Hold, Georgina, Ventimiglia, Marco, Gasbarrini, Antonio, Cammarota, Giovanni·2018·United European Gastroenterology Journal

Abstract

Background Protocols for treating recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (rCDI) through faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) are still not standardised. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of different FMT protocols for rCDI according to routes, number of infusions and infused material. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched through 31 May 2017. Studies offering multiple infusions if a single infusion failed to cure rCDI were included. Data were combined through a random effects meta‐analysis. Results Fifteen studies (1150 subjects) were analysed. Multiple infusions increased efficacy rates overall (76% versus 93%) and in each route of delivery (duodenal delivery: 73% with single infusion versus 81% with multiple infusions; capsule: 80% versus 92%; colonoscopy: 78% versus 98% and enema: 56% versus 92%). Duodenal delivery and colonoscopy were associated, respectively, with lower efficacy rates ( p = 0.039) and higher efficacy rates ( p = 0.006) overall. Faecal amount ≤ 50 g ( p = 0.006) and enema ( p = 0.019) were associated with lower efficacy rates after a single infusion. The use of fresh or frozen faeces did not influence outcomes. Conclusions Routes, number of infusions and faecal dosage may influence efficacy rates of FMT for rCDI. These findings could help to optimise FMT protocols in clinical practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/2050640618780762

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ianiro, G., Maida, M., Burisch, J., Simonelli, C., Hold, G., Ventimiglia, M., Gasbarrini, A., & Cammarota, G.
Affiliations
  • Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
  • Section of Gastroenterology S. Elia - Raimondi Hospital Caltanissetta Italy
  • Zealand University Hospital (DK)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Ospedale Vincenzo Cervello (IT)
Corresponding author
Ianiro, Gianluca
Venue
United European Gastroenterology Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-10
Volume
6
Issue
8
Pages
1232-1244
ISSN
  • 2050-6406 (ISSN-L)
  • 2050-6414
OpenAlex
W2807489422
Cited by
203
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 2
FWCI
3.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • United European Gastroenterology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubliCatt (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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, recurrent Clostridium difficile infection, delivery routes, colonoscopy, enema, treatment efficacy

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