Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 613

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation on Recurrence in Multiply Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection: A Randomized Trial

Open access
Kelly, Colleen R., Khoruts, Alexander, Staley, Christopher, Sadowsky, Michael J., Abd, Mortadha, Alani, Mustafa, Bakow, Brianna, Curran, Patrizia, McKenney, Joyce, Tisch, Allison, Reinert, Steven E., Machan, Jason T., Brandt, Lawrence J.·2016·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To date, evidence for the efficacy of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) in recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has been limited to case series and open-label clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of FMT for treatment of recurrent CDI. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01703494). SETTING: Two academic medical centers. PATIENTS: 46 patients who had 3 or more recurrences of CDI and received a full course of vancomycin for their most recent acute episode. INTERVENTION: Fecal microbiota transplantation with donor stool (heterologous) or patient's own stool (autologous) administered by colonoscopy. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was resolution of diarrhea without the need for further anti-CDI therapy during the 8-week follow-up. Safety data were compared between treatment groups via review of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), and new medical conditions for 6 months after FMT. Fecal microbiota analyses were performed on patients' stool before and after FMT and also on donors' stool. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, 20 of 22 patients (90.9%) in the donor FMT group achieved clinical cure compared with 15 of 24 (62.5%) in the autologous FMT group (P = 0.042). Resolution after autologous FMT differed by site (9 of 10 vs. 6 of 14 [P = 0.033]). All 9 patients who developed recurrent CDI after autologous FMT were free of further CDI after subsequent donor FMT. There were no SAEs related to FMT. Donor FMT restored gut bacterial community diversity and composition to resemble that of healthy donors. LIMITATION: The study included only patients who had 3 or more recurrences and excluded those who were immunocompromised and aged 75 years or older. CONCLUSION: Donor stool administered via colonoscopy seemed safe and was more efficacious than autologous FMT in preventing further CDI episodes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7326/m16-0271

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 613

Metadata

Authors
Kelly, C. R., Khoruts, A., Staley, C., Sadowsky, M. J., Abd, M., Alani, M., Bakow, B., Curran, P., McKenney, J., Tisch, A., Reinert, S. E., Machan, J. T., & Brandt, L. J.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
2016-08-23
Volume
165
Issue
9
Pages
609
ISSN
0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2512704070
Cited by
613
References
11
FWCI
66.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.