ReviewCureus2025
Efficacy of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) Versus Standard Antibiotic Therapy in Recurrent Clostridioides difficile (CDI/rCDI) Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gut feelings and sweet teeth: nutritional solutions to the gut damage in inflammatory bowel disease and HIV infection.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- The Impact of Diet on the Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Success in Patients with Gastrointestinal Diseases-A Literature Review.Nutrients · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Repeated Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI) is a hard clinical problem because normal antibiotic treatment usually doesn't stop relapses. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has come up as another way to try to fix the gut's microbial balance. This review and study looked at how well FMT works and how safe it is compared to normal antibiotic treatment for rCDI. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to December 2023 to find trials and studies. We used a model to calculate risk ratios, and we also looked at subgroups based on how FMT was given and the patient's age. After checking fifteen studies with 1,452 patients, we found that FMT worked better than antibiotics [relative risk (RR) = 1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.62-2.11, p < 0.001], with recurrence rates of 16% versus 42%. Subgroup checks showed that FMT worked well no matter how it was given, whether by colonoscopy, tube, or capsules. Side effects were usually small and about the same for both FMT and antibiotics. In conclusion, FMT is safer and does a better job than normal antibiotics for rCDI and should be thought of as the main treatment after the first time the infection comes back.
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.