The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Efficacy of different faecal microbiota transplantation protocols for Clostridium difficile infection: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“FMT was first investigated as a potential treatment for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI), where it has shown a consistent success rate of nearly 90% 3-5”
From Key determinants of success in fecal microbiota transplantation: From microbiome to clinic (2023) · cites this paper as [5]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“There is also evidence that also the amount of infused feces could influence the clinical effectiveness of FMT.”
From Key determinants of success in fecal microbiota transplantation: From microbiome to clinic (2023) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“First, the transfer of a healthy intestinal microbiome, regardless of its composition, is consistently effective in rCDI, 3-5 so there was no need to refine donor screening for the only current clinical indication for FMT.”
From Key determinants of success in fecal microbiota transplantation: From microbiome to clinic (2023) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 15 studies and 1,150 subjects, a fecal amount % 50 g was associated with lower efficacy of single FMT at meta-regression analysis.”
From Key determinants of success in fecal microbiota transplantation: From microbiome to clinic (2023) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“Although some metanalyses have assessed the efficacy of different routes, 3,5 a direct comparison has been provided only by few studies.”
From Key determinants of success in fecal microbiota transplantation: From microbiome to clinic (2023) · cites this paper as [5]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2000) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 355,893
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 · Cited by 56,722
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
The National Institute for Clinical Excellence
(2001) · Nursing Management · doi:10.7748/nm.8.2.39.s15 · Cited by 3,868
Duodenal Infusion of Donor Feces for Recurrent Clostridium difficile
van Nood, E., Vrieze, A., Nieuwdorp, M., Fuentes, S., Zoetendal, E. G., de Vos, W. M., Visser, C. E., Kuijper, E. J., Bartelsman, J. F. W. M., Tijssen, J. G. P., et al. (2013) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1205037 · Cited by 3,708
Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of Clostridium difficile infections
Surawicz, C. M., Brandt, L. J., Binion, D. G., Ananthakrishnan, A. N., Curry, S. R., Gilligan, P. H., McFarland, L. V., Mellow, M., & Zuckerbraun, B. S. (2013) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1038/ajg.2013.4 · Cited by 1,645
Debast, S. B., Bauer, M. P., & Kuijper, E. J. (2013) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1111/1469-0691.12418 · Cited by 1,241
European consensus conference on faecal microbiota transplantation in clinical practice
Cammarota, G., Ianiro, G., Tilg, H., Rajilić-Stojanović, M., Kump, P., Satokari, R., Sokol, H., Arkkila, P., Pintus, C., Hart, A., et al. (2017) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2016-313017 · Cited by 1,207
Self-citationTreating Clostridium difficile infection with fecal microbiota transplantation
Bakken, J. S., Borody, T., Brandt, L. J., Brill, J. V., Demarco, D. C., Franzos, M. A., Kelly, C., Khoruts, A., Louie, T., Martinelli, L. P., et al. (2011) · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2011.08.014 · Cited by 1,003
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Microbiota in health and diseases
Hou, K., Wu, Z.-X., Chen, X.-Y., Wang, J.-Q., Zhang, D., Xiao, C., Zhu, D., Koya, J. B., Wei, L., Li, J., et al. (2022) · Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy · doi:10.1038/s41392-022-00974-4 · Cited by 3,171
Cammarota, G., Ianiro, G., Kelly, C. R., Mullish, B. H., Allegretti, J. R., Kassam, Z., Putignani, L., Fischer, M., Keller, J. J., Costello, S. P., et al. (2019) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319548 · Cited by 506
Self-citationIaniro, G., Punčochář, M., Karcher, N., Porcari, S., Armanini, F., Asnicar, F., Beghini, F., Blanco-Míguez, A., Cumbo, F., Manghi, P., et al. (2022) · Nature Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41591-022-01964-3 · Cited by 366
Self-citationFecal microbiota transplantation: current challenges and future landscapes
Yadegar, A., Bar‐Yoseph, H., Monaghan, T. M., Pakpour, S., Severino, A., Kuijper, E. J., Smits, W. K., Terveer, E. M., Neupane, S., Nabavi-Rad, A., et al. (2024) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.00060-22 · Cited by 397
Self-citationKey determinants of success in fecal microbiota transplantation: From microbiome to clinic
Porcari, S., Benech, N., Valles-Colomer, M., Segata, N., Gasbarrini, A., Cammarota, G., Sokol, H., & Ianiro, G. (2023) · Cell Host & Microbe · doi:10.1016/j.chom.2023.03.020 · Cited by 331
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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
- ORCID
- Venue
- United European Gastroenterology Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-10
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1232-1244
- ISSN
- 2050-6406 (ISSN-L)
- 2050-6414
- PMC
- PMC6169051
- OpenAlex
- W2807489422
- Semantic Scholar
- e6ac43617453aaa7fa983df0179c26b085f1375d
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
