AIM: The current overview on published systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analysis (MAs) aimed to systematically gather, evaluate, and synthesize solid evidence for using fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) to treat ulcerative colitis (UC).
METHODS: Relevant articles published before January 2023 were collected from Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library. Two authors used Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool, PRISMA checklists, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system were applied by two authors to independently evaluate the methodological quality, reporting quality, and evidence quality, respectively. Re-meta-analysis on the primary RCTs was conducted after excluding overlapping randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
RESULTS: Six SRs/MAs involving 12 primary RCTs and 544 participants were included. According to the AMSTAR-2 tool and PRISMA checklist, methodological quality and reporting quality of the included studies was overall satisfactory. The evidence quality of a great majority of outcomes was rated as moderate to high according to the GRADE system. Compared to placebo, the re-meta-analysis found a great advantage of use FMT in inducing combined clinical and endoscopic remission (OR 3.83 [2.31, 6.34]), clinical remission (3.31 [2.09, 5.25]), endoscopic remission (OR 3.75 [2.20, 6.39]), clinical response (OR 2.56 [1.64, 4.00]), and endoscopic response (OR 2.18 [1.12, 4.26]). Pooled data showed no significant difference in serious adverse events between patients receiving FMT and those receiving placebo (OR 1.53 [0.74, 3.19]). Evidence quality of the outcomes derived from re-meta-analysis was significantly higher after overcoming the limitations of previous SRs/MAs.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, moderate- to high-quality evidence supported a promising use of FMT to safely induce remission in UC. However, further trials with larger sample size are still required to comprehensively analyze the delivery route, total dosage, frequency, and donor selection in FMT.
BACKGROUND: The underuse or overuse of knowledge products leads to waste in healthcare, and primary care is no exception.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize which knowledge products are frequently implemented, the implementation strategies used in primary care, and the implementation outcomes that are measured.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review of systematic reviews (SR) using the Cochrane systematic approach to include eligible SR. The inclusion criteria were: any primary care contexts; healthcare professionals and patients; any EPOC implementation strategies of specified knowledge products; any comparator; and any implementation outcomes based on the Proctor framework. We searched the Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ovid PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from their inception to October 2019, without any restriction. We searched the references of the included SR. Pairs of reviewers independently performed selection, data extraction and methodological quality assessment with AMSTAR 2. Data extraction was informed by EPOC taxonomy for implementation strategies and the Proctor framework for implementation outcomes. We performed a descriptive analysis and summarized the results using a narrative synthesis.
RESULTS: Of the 11,101 records identified, 81 SR were included. Forty-seven SR involved healthcare professionals alone. Fifteen SR were of high or moderate methodological quality. Most of them addressed one type of knowledge product (56/81), common clinical practice guidelines (26/56) or management, and behavioural or pharmacological health interventions (24/56). Mixed strategies were used for implementation (67/81), predominantly educational-based (meetings in 60/81, materials distribution in 59/81, and academic detailing in 45/81), reminder (53/81) and audit and feedback (40/81) strategies. Education meetings (P=.13) and academic detailing (P=.11) seem to be more used when the population is composed of Healthcare professionals alone. The improvement of the adoption of knowledge products was the most commonly measured outcome (72/81). The evidence level was reported in 10/81 SR on 62 outcomes (including 48 improvement of adoption), of which 16 outcomes were of moderate or high level.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practice guidelines and management, behavioural or pharmacological health interventions are the most commonly implemented knowledge products through the mixed use of educational, reminders and audit and feedback strategies. There is need for a strong methodology for the SR of RCTs to explore their effectiveness and the whole cascade of implementation outcomes.
CLINICALTRIAL: Not applicable.
The current overview on published systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analysis (MAs) aimed to systematically gather, evaluate, and synthesize solid evidence for using fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) to treat ulcerative colitis (UC).
METHODS:
Relevant articles published before January 2023 were collected from Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library. Two authors used Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool, PRISMA checklists, and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system were applied by two authors to independently evaluate the methodological quality, reporting quality, and evidence quality, respectively. Re-meta-analysis on the primary RCTs was conducted after excluding overlapping randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
RESULTS:
Six SRs/MAs involving 12 primary RCTs and 544 participants were included. According to the AMSTAR-2 tool and PRISMA checklist, methodological quality and reporting quality of the included studies was overall satisfactory. The evidence quality of a great majority of outcomes was rated as moderate to high according to the GRADE system. Compared to placebo, the re-meta-analysis found a great advantage of use FMT in inducing combined clinical and endoscopic remission (OR 3.83 [2.31, 6.34]), clinical remission (3.31 [2.09, 5.25]), endoscopic remission (OR 3.75 [2.20, 6.39]), clinical response (OR 2.56 [1.64, 4.00]), and endoscopic response (OR 2.18 [1.12, 4.26]). Pooled data showed no significant difference in serious adverse events between patients receiving FMT and those receiving placebo (OR 1.53 [0.74, 3.19]). Evidence quality of the outcomes derived from re-meta-analysis was significantly higher after overcoming the limitations of previous SRs/MAs.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, moderate- to high-quality evidence supported a promising use of FMT to safely induce remission in UC. However, further trials with larger sample size are still required to comprehensively analyze the delivery route, total dosage, frequency, and donor selection in FMT.
