ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2025
Efficacy of different modalities of faecal microbiota transplantation in ulcerative colitis: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Fecal microbiota transplantation in ulcerative colitis: mucosal immune mechanisms and precision microbiota therapy.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While several small sample size randomized controlled trials suggested the superiority of faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) over placebo in ulcerative colitis (UC), the most effective modality to perform FMT remains unknown. Objectives: To compare the efficacy of different modalities of FMT to induce clinical remission in patients with UC. Data sources and methods: We performed a systematic review and network analysis (sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL; random effects model) of randomized controlled trials including at least one arm of FMT in adult patients with active UC. The primary endpoint, that is, clinical remission (total Mayo score ⩽2 with Mayo endoscopic score ⩽1), was assessed between weeks 6 and 12. Results are expressed as relative risks with 95% confidence intervals, adjusted for bowel cleansing and pre-FMT antibiotics. Ranking of FMT modalities was calculated as their surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA). Results: Among the 12 selected studies, patients were exclusively bio-naïve in 4 studies (4/12), while between 9% and 32% had prior biologics exposure in the other trials. The risk of bias was low across all domains in seven studies. Contrary to upper gastrointestinal tract (GI) FMT (Relative risk (RR) = 1.1 (0.2-7.7)), oral capsule (RR = 7.1 (1.8-33.3)), lower GI FMT (RR = 4.5 (1.7-12.5) and combination of both (RR = 12.5 (2.1-100)) are more effective than placebo to induce clinical remission. The combination of lower GI FMT and oral capsule was significantly more effective than upper GI FMT to induce clinical remission (RR = 10.7 (1.1-104.2)). Combination of lower GI FMT and oral capsule ranked the highest for the induction of clinical remission (SUCRA = 0.93). Multidonor FMT did not perform better than single donor FMT. Autologous FMT ranked lower than placebo (SUCRA = 0.12 vs 0.22). Conclusion: The combination of lower GI and oral capsule FMT seems to be the best modality of FMT for patients with UC. In clinical trials, autologous FMT should be avoided due to a potential detrimental effect. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023385511.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.