SynthesisFrontiers in microbiology2026
Efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation for chronic constipation: a systematic review and meta-analysis integrating pre-post and single-arm evidence.
Synthesis in Frontiers in microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic constipation is a common functional gastrointestinal disorder with a global prevalence of 12%-17%. Conventional treatments have limited efficacy for refractory cases, with high recurrence and side effects. Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) offers a novel strategy by restoring gut microecological balance, yet its efficacy requires systematic evaluation. This meta-analysis evaluated FMT efficacy and safety through an innovative "three-in-one" framework. Methods: We systematically searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and CNKI for RCTs, single-arm studies, and cohort studies. The framework comprised: (1) RCT random-effects meta-analysis; (2) single-arm proportional meta-analysis with Freeman-Tukey transformation; (3) pre-post paired sensitivity analysis (r = 0.5, with sensitivity tests at r = 0.3, 0.7, 0.9). Publication bias was assessed via Egger, Harbord, trim-and-fill, and fail-safe N tests. Results: 12 RCTs ( Conclusion: Current evidence suggests FMT is a promising therapeutic option for chronic constipation, with an adjusted clinical total response rate of RR = 1.21 (95% CI: 1.10-1.33) after correction for publication bias. While FMT was associated with improvements in symptom scores, quality of life, and intestinal function, the evidence quality is limited by publication bias, high heterogeneity, and high risk of bias in all included RCTs. More high-quality, sham-controlled RCTs are needed to validate these findings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420261394673, identifier: CRD420261394673.
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.