Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1057
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3175
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Dig Dis Sci
Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Porter Adventist Hospital in Denver, Denver, CO, USA.
Published: March 2025
Background And Aims: Recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) have shown inconsistent effectiveness of FMT among patients with IBD. This study aimed to appraise the evidence for clinically relevant outcomes with FMT in patients with IBD using published SRMAs.
Methods: We searched major databases from inception through Nov 2023 to identify SRMAs assessing the effectiveness of FMT in patients with IBD. Primary outcomes included clinical remission, clinical response, endoscopic remission/response, a composite endpoint, and adverse effects. We included SRMAs investigating FMT's effect in patients with IBD using RCTs and observational studies data. Methodological quality and evidence certainty were assessed using AMSTAR 2 and GRADE.
Results: Out of 106 citations, 16 SRMAs were included with varying study sizes (2 to 60 primary studies) and participants (112 to 1169 per SRMA). Five SRMAs assessed FMT in IBD, while 11 focused on Ulcerative Colitis (UC). Seven SRMAs included RCTs only, and nine included both RCTs and observational studies. Methodological quality was critically low in 9 SRMAs (56%) and low in 7 studies (44%). FMT showed clinical remission benefit in all 16 SRMAs, with varying certainty: 3 high, 4 moderate, 4 low, and 5 very low. Endoscopic remission/response was reported in 5 meta-analyses on UC, with 1 high, 3 moderate, and 1 very low certainty. Combined clinical remission and endoscopic response were reported in 3 SRMAs on UC, with 1 low and 2 moderate certainty. Adverse events were reported in 6 SRMAs, with 1 high, 3 moderate, 1 low, and 1 very low certainty.
Conclusion: Current evidence shows potential benefits of FMT in IBD, particularly UC, supported by significant associations in 16 meta-analyses. However, poor methodological quality and variability in evidence certainty call for high-quality RCTs to strengthen the evidence.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10620-025-08946-8 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!
© LitMetric 2025. All rights reserved.