Efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation for the induction of remission in active ulcerative colitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Open accessAbstract
Background: Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is a novel management strategy for ulcerative colitis (UC). However, its effectiveness remains controversial. This study sought to assess the effectiveness of FMT in the treatment of active UC by performing a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: We searched the Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases from their inception to December 2021. RCTs that recruited patients with active UC and treated them with FMT, a placebo or a suitable comparator were included in the meta-analysis. PICOS: Patients, active UC; Intervention, FMT; Control, placebo or a suitable comparator; Outcomes, remission rate; Studies, RCTs. The risk of bias assessment was performed with Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (version 2). Meta-analyses of risk ratios (RRs) were performed to estimate the differences in remission rates and the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) between the FMT-treated and control patients. Results: A total of 9 RCTs comprising 425 UC patients (213 FMT and 212 control) were included in the meta-analysis. The risk of bias was low in these RCTs. Clinical remission was observed in 86 of the 213 patients in the FMT groups and 47 of the 212 patients in the control groups [RR: 1.84; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.37, 2.47; P<0.0001]. Clinical remission was better when the FMT delivery route was via the lower gut, the FMT dose was >300 grams, and the fecal specimen from multiple donors. Endoscopic remission (observed in 7 RCTs) was achieved in 33 of the 195 FMT-treated patients compared to 17 of the 194 control patients (RR: 1.94; 95% CI: 1.14, 3.31; P=0.01). SAEs were reported in 22 of the 213 FMT-treated patients but only 11 of the 212 control patients (RR: 2.05; 95% CI: 1.03, 4.09; P=0.04). Discussion: FMT is an effective treatment for patients with active UC. Significantly higher clinical and endoscopic remission rates are observed with FMT than with control treatments. However, FMT may cause a significantly higher incidence of SAEs than control treatments. Future studies should delineate the effects of donor selection, dosage, delivery route, and antibiotic pretreatment and should evaluate the safety profile of FMT.
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
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 amount of infused feces may influence the clinical effectiveness of FMT.
“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 [105]
In UC patients, use of more than 300 g of feces is associated with a higher likelihood of clinical remission after FMT.
“Moreover, in a systematic review and meta-analysis of 9 trials and 425 patients with UC, the use of more than 300 g of feces was associated with a higher likelihood of clinical remission after FMT.”
From Key determinants of success in fecal microbiota transplantation: From microbiome to clinic (2023) · cites this paper as [105]
The relationship between high quantities of feces and clinical success has been confirmed in disorders beyond CDI.
“The relationship between high quantities of feces and clinical success has also been confirmed in disorders beyond CDI.”
From Key determinants of success in fecal microbiota transplantation: From microbiome to clinic (2023) · cites this paper as [105]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 32
- Authors
- Wei, Z.-J., Dong, H.-B., Ren, Y.-T., & Jiang, B.
- Affiliations
- Beijing Tsinghua Chang Gung Hospital (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Jiang, Bo
- ORCID
- Jiang, Bo
- Venue
- Annals of Translational Medicine
- Publisher
- AME Publishing Company
- Published
- 2022-07
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 14
- Pages
- 802-802
- ISSN
- 2305-5839 (ISSN-L)
- 2305-5847
- PMC
- PMC9372650
- OpenAlex
- W4288494219
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8
- FWCI
- 0.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Annals of Translational Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Inflammatory Bowel Disease
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Microscopic Colitis
- Keywords
- fecal microbiota transplantation, ulcerative colitis, clinical remission, endoscopic remission, serious adverse events, treatment efficacy and safety, inflammatory bowel disease, microbiota-based therapy, risk of bias assessment
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