
==== Front
Eur J Med Res
Eur J Med Res
European Journal of Medical Research
0949-2321
2047-783X
BioMed Central London

39289768
2046
10.1186/s40001-024-02046-5
Review
Clinical efficacy and safety of faecal microbiota transplantation in the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis
Lo Shao-Wei 1
Hung Tsung-Hsuan 1
Lin Yen-Tsen 1
Lee Chun-Shen 1
Chen Chiung-Yu 12
Fang Ching-Ju 34
Lai Pei-Chun debbie0613.lai@gmail.com

15
1 grid.412040.3 0000 0004 0639 0054 Education Centre, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, National Cheng Kung University, No.138, Sheng Li Road, Tainan, 704 Taiwan
2 grid.64523.36 0000 0004 0532 3255 Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
3 https://ror.org/01b8kcc49 grid.64523.36 0000 0004 0532 3255 Medical Library, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
4 grid.64523.36 0000 0004 0532 3255 Department of Secretariat, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
5 grid.64523.36 0000 0004 0532 3255 Department of Paediatrics, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
18 9 2024
18 9 2024
2024
29 46419 2 2024
30 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Background

The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).

Methods

We searched four databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared FMT with a control intervention in patients with IBS. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias (RoB) tool was chosen for appraisal. Meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted. Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the certainty of evidence (CoE).

Results

We included 12 RCTs with a total of 615 participants. Meta-analyses showed no significant difference between the FMT and control groups in terms of clinical responses (relative risk [RR] = 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.88–2.33) and changes in IBS Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS) scores (standardised mean difference [SMD] =  − 0.31, 95% CI  − 0.72 to 0.09) and IBS Quality of Life (IBS-QOL) scores (SMD = 0.30, 95% CI  − 0.09 to 0.69). Subgroup analysis revealed that in studies with low RoB and using endoscopy, nasojejunal tube and rectal enema delivery, FMT led to a significant improvement in clinical responses and changes in IBS-SSS and IBS-QOL scores. TSA suggested that the current evidence is inconclusive and that the CoE is very low.

Conclusion

This study suggests that patients with IBS may benefit from FMT especially when it is administered via endoscopy, nasojejunal tube or rectal enema. However, the certainty of evidence is very low. Further research is needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of FMT for IBS treatment.

Trial Registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42020211002.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40001-024-02046-5.

Keywords

Irritable bowel syndrome
Faecal microbiota transplantation
Systemic review
Meta-analysis
Randomised controlled trial
Higher Education Sprout Project, Ministry of Education to the Headquaters of University Advancement at National Cheng Kung Universityhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004844 National Cheng Kung University Hospital NCKUH-11304017 Lai Pei-Chun issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder characterised by abdominal pain and altered bowel habits, leading to considerable discomfort and impairing quality of life [1]. It affects a large proportion of the population, with prevalence rates ranging from 7 to 21% worldwide [2]. Despite its high prevalence, its underlying mechanisms are not yet fully understood, making developing effective treatments difficult [3].

Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is a therapeutic intervention that involves the transfer of faecal microbiota from a healthy donor to a recipient with dysbiotic gut microbiota [4]. FMT is thought to work by restoring gut microbial diversity and function, which leads to an improvement in gastrointestinal and nongastrointestinal symptoms [5]. It has been used to treat a variety of disorders, including recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), IBS, Parkinson’s disease and various inflammatory disorders [6]. In 2022, the FDA approved the first FMT therapy to prevent recurrent CDI in adults who previously completed antibiotic treatment [7]. This event represents a major milestone of FMT therapy.

Recent studies have suggested that alterations in gut microbiota may play a key role in the development and exacerbation of IBS symptoms [8]. The gut microbiota is a complex ecosystem of microorganisms that live in the gastrointestinal tract and has been shown to play a crucial role in maintaining gut homeostasis and overall health [9]. Dysbiosis or an imbalance in the gut microbiota has been associated with a variety of gastrointestinal disorders, including IBS [10]. This association has led to increasing interest in FMT as a potential therapy for IBS.

Although previous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the efficacy of FMT in IBS treatment, their results were inconsistent and limited by their small sample sizes [11–22]. Prior systematic reviews with meta-analyses of RCTs also have some limitations. Firstly, continuous outcomes, such as the IBS Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS) and IBS Quality of Life (IBS-QOL), were pooled on the basis of their scores at the follow-up endpoint instead of the change in their scores from baseline [23, 24]. Furthermore, despite the existence of two different scoring systems for IBS-QOL in enrolled RCTs, the original scores, rather than the standardised mean difference (SMD), from each RCT were combined [24–26]. Last but not least, several new RCTs and full-text articles were not enrolled in previous meta-analyses [18–20]. We conducted an updated meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive and precise analysis of the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of FMT in treating IBS to address the above limitations. Our study also utilised trial sequential analysis (TSA) to provide a cautious evaluation of the data through repetitive and cumulative testing.

Methods

Literature searches and data sources

This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook of systematic reviews and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [27]. We comprehensively searched online literature by using Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL and Scopus. All the searches were completed on June 20, 2024. In addition, we searched clinicaltrials.gov manually for potential unpublished trials. The database search terms consisted of ‘irritable colon’ OR ‘irritable bowel syndrome’ AND ‘faecal microbiota transplantation’. We limited the results to ‘randomised controlled trials’ and ‘human’. The detailed search methods are available in the Supplementary Materials (supplementary Table 1). No language restrictions were imposed. We also manually searched the references of the included studies for additional relevant citations. Any further information required from the original author was requested through written correspondence (e.g. emailing the corresponding or first author).

Study selection

Two authors (Shao-Wei, Lo and Tsung-Hsuan, Hung) independently screened the titles and abstracts then reviewed full texts and assessed the relevant studies for compliance with inclusion criteria. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion.

The inclusion criteria are as follows: (1) RCTs enrolling patients diagnosed with IBS by a clinician or on the basis of specific criteria, such as Rome Criteria or Manning. (2) Intervention with FMT at any dosage and through any route of administration and control group treated with a placebo or autologous transfer. (3) Primary outcomes included clinical response and changes in the severity of IBS symptoms, including IBS-SSS and IBS-QOL scores, and secondary outcomes included the safety and side effects of the intervention. The clinical response was the proportion of patients with clinical responses to the total examined patients and was defined as decreases of at least > 50 in IBS-SSS or > 30% in GSRS-IBS or adequate relief of global symptoms after 12 weeks.

The study design and protocol for this research were registered with PROSPERO. Approval was granted by its editorial team under registration number CRD42020211002.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Two authors (Yen-Tsen Lin and Tsung-Hsuan Hung) independently extracted the data, including publication year, origin country, study design, sample size, patients’ baseline characteristics, IBS diagnosis criteria and subtype, intervention type, primary and secondary outcomes, adverse events, follow-up information and exclusion and inclusion criteria from the included studies. Two authors (Shao-Wei Lo and Chun-Shen Lee) independently assessed quality by using the revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool for Randomised Trials (RoB 2) [28]. The confidence levels of the outcome effect estimates were evaluated by grading the quality of evidence as low risk, some concern for risk or high risk. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion.

Statistical analysis

We used random-effects models to analyse pooled effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all outcomes. For binary data, such as clinical response and adverse events, the meta-analysis used relative risk (RR). We analysed continuous data by using the standard mean difference (SMD) for the changes in IBS-SSS and IBS-QOL due to discrepancies amongst scales in the included studies. P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Heterogeneity was evaluated by using the I2 statistic [29].

TSA is a recently described cumulative frequentist meta-analysis method used to weigh type I and II errors and to provide information on the precision and uncertainty of the meta-analysis results. TSA also provides monitoring boundaries or futility boundaries to providing information on whether ongoing trials are necessary [30]. TSA version 0.9.5.10 beta was used in this study, and the details of model setting were mentioned in a previous report [31]. In summary, we analysed the data using a random-effects model via the Biggerstaff–Tweedie method, with a 5% type I error rate, 80% statistical power, and an improvement with a relative risk of 50%. The TSA result was presented as MD and α-spending adjusted CIs. We performed subgroup analysis on the basis of the following variables to explore possible causes leading to the heterogeneity of treatment effects: (1) the route of FMT delivery; (2) single or mixed donor samples; (3) fresh or frozen donor stool and (4) risk of bias (RoB) in the included studies. The differences in treatment effect were tested between subgroups, and P < 0.1 indicated a potential subgroup effect [27]. We detected publication bias with Egger’s test and funnel plots where more than 10 studies were present [32]. Data analysis and RoB plots were completed with Review Manager version 5.4 (Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2020).

Grading of the certainty of evidence

The certainty of evidence is the extent to which we can be confident that what the research tells us about a particular treatment effect is likely to be accurate. The levels of evidence of all outcomes were assessed on the basis of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology [33]. The overall certainty of evidence (CoE) was evaluated in accordance with the GRADE handbook by downgrading it to five domains [33]. The CoE was judged as high, moderate, low or very low and was constructed by using the online GRADE Profiler (available from http://www.gradepro.org).

Results

Search results and study characteristics

Study selection is illustrated in Fig. 1. The initial literature search identified 639 potentially eligible articles. A total of 576 unique, relevant studies were retrieved after duplicate removal. After the titles and abstracts of the articles were screened, 71 eligible studies were retrieved and then subjected to full-text assessment. A total of 59 studies were excluded for various reasons, and 12 randomised trials were ultimately included in data extraction [11–22] (Fig. 1).Fig. 1 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of study selection

The included trials were published between 2018 and 2023. When all the studies were combined, the total numbers of patients in the FMT and control groups were 356 and 259, respectively. A summary of the included studies and the baseline characteristics of the enrolled participants are presented in Table 1. Table 1 The characteristics of included studies

Author, year (country)	Sample size (female)	IBS-criteria and subtypes	FMT intervention	Placebo intervention	Primary outcomes	Secondary outcomes	
Halkjaer et al., 2018 (Denmark)	52 (35)	Rome III,

IBS-SSS ≥ 175,

33.3% IBS‐C,

29.4% IBS‐D,

37.3% IBS‐M

	25 FMT oral capsules consisting of 50 g frozen donor stool daily × 12d

Mixed samples of 4 donors

	26 placebo oral capsules daily × 12d	Decrease in IBS-SSS ≥ 50 points at 3 months	Change in IBS-QOL, microbiota profile, adverse event	
Johnsen et al., 2018 (Norway)	83 (55)	Rome III,

IBS-SSS ≥ 175,

53.0% IBS‐D,

47.0% IBS‐M

	Single FMT consisting of 50–80 g both fresh and frozen (1:1) donor stool to the cecum via colonoscopy

Mixed samples of 2 donors

	50‐80 g autologous stool via colonoscopy	Decrease in IBS-SSS ≥ 75 points at 3 months	Change in IBS-QOL, adverse event	
Holster et al., 2019 (Sweden)	16 (8)	Rome III,

25.0% IBS‐C,

56.2% IBS‐D,

18.8% IBS‐M

	Single FMT consisting of 30 g frozen donor stool to the cecum via colonoscopy

Single sample of either of the 2 donors

	30 g autologous stool via colonoscopy	Decrease in GSRS-IBS ≥ 30%	Change in IBS-QOL, IBS-SSS, microbiota profile, anxiety, depression, adverse event	
Aroniadis et al., 2019 (USA)	48 (18)	Rome III,

IBS-SSS ≥ 175,

100% IBS-D

	25 FMT oral capsules consisting of 28 g frozen donor stool daily × 3d

Single sample of either of the 4 donors

	25 placebo oral capsules daily × 3d	Decrease in IBS-SSS ≥ 50 points at 12 weeks	Change in IBS-QOL, depression, anxiety, stool form, microbiota profile, adverse event	
El-Salhy et al., 2019 (Norway)	164 (133)	Rome IV,

IBS-SSS ≥ 175,

38.4% IBS-D,

37.8% IBS-C,

23.8% IBS-M

	Single FMT consisting of 30 g or 60 g frozen donor stool to the distal duodenum via gastroscopy

A single donor

	Single autologous stool via gastroscopy	Decrease in IBS-SSS ≥ 50 points at 3 months	Change in IBS-QOL, dysbiosis index, microbiota profile	
Lahtinen et al., 2020 (Finland)	49 (29)	Rome III,

51.0% IBS‐D,

6.1% IBS‐C,

14.3% IBS‐M,

28.6% IBS-U

	Single FMT consisting of 30 g frozen donor stool to the cecum via colonoscopy

A single donor

	Single 30 g autologous stool via colonoscopy	Decrease in IBS-SSS ≥ 50 points at 12 weeks	Change in IBS-QOL, depression, anxiety, stool consistency, microbiota profile	
Guo et al., 2021 (China)	18 (8)	100% IBS-D comorbid with HAM-A ≥ 14 and HAM-D ≥ 8	30 FMT oral enteric capsules, per 2 days, for 3 times	30 empty oral capsules	Decrease in IBS-SSS ≥ 50 points at 12 weeks	Change in IBS-QOL, depression, anxiety, microbiota profile	
Holvoet et al., 2021 (Belgium)	62 (38)	Rome III, refractory IBS with severe bloating, IBS-D, IBS-M	Single FMT consisting of fresh donor stool via naso-jejunal tube

Single sample of either of the 2 donors

	Single autologous stool via naso-jejunal tube	Adequate relief of overall symptoms at 12 weeks	Change in IBS-QOL, IBS symptom, stool consistency, microbiota profile, adverse event	
Aumpan et al., 2022 (Thailand)	20 (N/A)	Rome IV	Single FMT consisting of 50 g donor stool via rectal enema	Single 50 g autologous stool via rectal enema	Decrease in IBS-SSS ≥ 50 points	change in IBS-QOL, abdominal pain, abdominal distention	
Mazzawi et al., 2022 (Norway)	26 (N/A)	Rome III,

IBS-SSS ≥ 175,

100% IBS-D

	Single FMT consisting of 30 g fresh donor stool via gastroscopy

A Single donor from healthy family members (first-grade relatives)

	Single 30 g autologous stool via gastroscopy	Decrease in IBS-SSS ≥ 50 points (Not reported)	Change in IBS-SSS, stool consistency, anxiety, depression, microbiota profile	
Singh et al., 2022 (USA)	23 (11)	Rome III,

IBS-SSS > 150,

100% IBS-D

	19 FMT oral capsules, each pill consisting of 0.75 g of frozen donor stool

A single donor

	19 placebo oral capsules	Decrease in IBS-SSS ≥ 50 points	Change in IBS-SSS, IBS-QOL, microbiota profile, adverse event	
Yau et al., 2023 (China)	56 (26)	Rome III	100 mL of FMT with 50 g donor stool was infused via upper endoscopy into distal duodenum at baseline and week 4

9 patients received stool from two donors, and the remaining 19 patients received stool from one donor

	100 mL of normal saline infused via upper endoscopy into the distal duodenum under conscious sedation at baseline and week 4	Decrease in IBS-SSS ≥ 50 points	Change in IBS-SSS, relief of general IBS symptoms, quality of life, faecal microbiome metagenomic profiling	

RoB

The RoB assessment domains and authors’ judgments with justifications based on the RoB 2.0 tool were summarised (Supplementary Fig. 1). Five studies were of some concern for allocation bias because no information was available about concealment, [11, 16–18, 20]Additionally, one study [22] exhibited imbalanced baseline characteristics between the two groups post-randomisation, including age and baseline IBS severity, which could potentially confound the true effect. Only one study was rated with high RoB for the domain of performance bias because information about the blinding of the participants and personnel was unavailable and the authors did not appropriately analyse the effect of adherence. [18] Four studies were of some concern for RoB in the attrition bias domain due to their relatively high and unequal dropout rates without available explanations [12, 14, 19, 20]. Two studies were of some concern for detection bias because no information was available about the assessors being blinded. [16, 18] Overall, two of the included studies had low RoB [13, 15]; six were of some concern for RoB [12, 14, 17, 19, 20, 22]; and three had high RoB [11, 16, 18]. The RoB of the study of Aumpan et al., 2022 could not be assessed because only its abstract was published.

Outcome

Comparison of the clinical response of the FMT group with that of the control group after 12 weeks

The pooled effect showed no significant difference between the FMT and control groups in clinical response rate with high heterogeneity (RR = 1.44, 95% CI 0.88–2.33, I2 = 79%) (Fig. 2a). We further conducted subgroup analyses in accordance with the route of FMT delivery (Fig. 2a), the RoB of each study (Fig. 2b), the use of a single or mixed donor sample (Supplementary Fig. 2a) and fresh or frozen donor stool (Supplementary Fig. 2b) to explore potential heterogeneity. The clinical response of the group that received FMT via endoscopy (colonoscopy [12, 13, 16] and gastroscopy [15, 22]), nasojejunal tube [17] and rectal enema [21] was superior to that of the control group with moderate heterogeneity (RR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.26–2.91, I2 = 61%) (Fig. 2a). The pooled effect showed no statistically significant difference between FMT and the control administered via oral capsule [11, 14, 18, 20] (RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.32–1.68, I2 = 70%) (Fig. 2a). Pooled data from RCTs with a low RoB revealed that the FMT group was superior to the control groups with low heterogeneity (RR = 3.53, 95% CI 2.21–5.64, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 2b) [13, 15]. By contrast, the pooled effect showed no statistically significant difference between the FMT and control groups in studies with some concerns [11, 12, 14, 17, 22] or high RoB [16, 18, 20] (RR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.69–1.65, I2 = 69%) (Fig. 2b).Fig. 2 Forest plot of the clinical responses of patients with IBS to FMT or the placebo. a Subgroup analysis based on the route of FMT delivery. b Subgroup analysis based on the RoB of a study. c TSA of the FMT treatment effect on patients with IBS

Because the subgroup analysis of FMT via direct delivery methods (including endoscopy, nasojejunal tube and rectal enema) showed more promising results, we performed further post hoc analysis by TSA in this subgroup. The Z-curves crossed the O'Brien–Fleming α-spending monitoring boundaries, indicating a potentially significant effect. Nevertheless, the sample size included in this subgroup analysis did not exceed the required information size, limiting the findings' strength (Fig. 2c).

Change in IBS‐SSS scores from the baseline after 8–12 weeks

The overall pooled estimates revealed no statistically significant difference in IBS-SSS scores after 8–12 weeks between the FMT and control groups with high heterogeneity (SMD =  − 0.31, 95% CI  − 0.72 to 0.09, I2 = 77%) (Fig. 3a). Subgroup analyses showed that FMT delivered via endoscopy [12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 22], nasojejunal tube and rectal enema had significantly reduced IBS-SSS scores after 8–12 weeks compared with the control with low heterogeneity (SMD =  − 0.43, 95% CI  − 0.73 to  − 0.13, I2 = 43%) (Fig. 3a). No statistically significant difference was found between the FMT and control groups treated with oral capsules [11, 14, 18, 20] (SMD =  − 0.16, 95% CI  − 1.22 to 0.90, I2 = 86%) (Fig. 3a). Pooled data from RCTs with a low RoB [13, 15] indicated that FMT was superior to the control with low heterogeneity (SMD =  − 0.66, 95% CI  − 0.99 to  − 0.33, I2 = 2%) (Fig. 3b).Fig. 3 Forest plot of the change in the IBS-SSS of patients with IBS in response to FMT or the placebo. a Subgroup analysis based on the route of FMT delivery. b Subgroup analysis based on the RoB in a study

Change in IBS‐QOL scores from the baseline after 8–12 weeks

Pooled estimates showed no statistically significant difference in IBS-QOL scores after 8–12 weeks between the FMT and control groups (SMD = 0.30, 95% CI  − 0.09 to 0.69, I2 = 68%) (Fig. 4a). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that FMT delivered via endoscopy [13, 15, 16], nasojejunal tube [17] and rectal enema significantly improved IBS-QOL scores after 8–12 weeks compared with the control (SMD = 0.53, 95% CI 0.20–0.86, I2 = 34%) (Fig. 4a). However, the pooled effect showed no statistically significant difference between the FMT and control delivered via oral capsule [11, 14, 18, 20] (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI  − 0.78 to 0.85, I2 = 79%) (Fig. 4a). Pooled data from RCTs with a low RoB [13, 15] showed that FMT was superior to the control with low heterogeneity (SMD = 0.77, 95% CI 0.45–1.09, I2 = 0%) (Fig. 4b).Fig. 4 Forest plot of the change in the IBS-QOL of patients with IBS in response to FMT or the placebo. a Subgroup analysis based on the route of FMT delivery. b Subgroup analysis based on the RoB of a study

Adverse events

Pooled analysis revealed no significant difference between the FMT and control groups in adverse events, including nausea, abdominal pain/cramping/tenderness, diarrhoea, constipation, bloating/flatulence and fever (Fig. 5).Fig. 5 Forest plot of the adverse events in patients with IBS in response to FMT or the placebo: a abdominal pain, b bloating/flatulence, c constipation, d diarrhea, e fever, f nausea

GRADE assessment

The certainty of evidence in consideration of the outcomes with clinical response and changes in IBS-SSS and IBS-QoL scores were all judged as ‘very low’ in accordance with GRADE criteria. We downgraded the CoE in the domain of risk of bias because more than half of the included studies were judged as having some concern to high RoB. We also downgraded in the domain of inconsistency due to high heterogeneity, and in the domain of imprecision due to wide confidence intervals. (Supplementary Table 2). Indirectness and publication bias were not considered with the Egger’s regression test (P = 0.72725) and the funnel plot showed no evidence of publication bias (Supplementary Fig. 3).

Discussion

IBS is a prevalent gastrointestinal disorder that significantly impacts patients' quality of life and imposes substantial economic burdens globally [34, 35]. Recent research has delved into the potential of microbiota-targeting treatments for IBS sufferers [36]. The rationale behind these interventions hinges on the direct influence of microbiota on the gut’s mucosal environment and their regulatory impact on the gut–brain communication pathway [36], aiming to preserve gut mucosal integrity, alter gut microbiome composition and mitigate inflammatory cytokine release [37, 38]. However, the definitive effectiveness and safety of FMT in IBS patients remain inconclusive.

To address this gap, our study performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the efficacy and safety of FMT in patients with IBS. We included updated studies and eventually identified 12 RCTs. In addition, we combined various scoring systems in IBS-QOL by using SMD while considering the changes in IBS-SSS and IBS-QOL scores from the baseline. We further strengthened our analysis by applying the rigorous TSA method to test the robustness of our findings. As a result, our study provides a highly reliable and insightful perspective on the effectiveness of FMT in IBS treatment.

Consistent with the meta-analyses published recently in 2022 and 2023, our study revealed no significant differences between the FMT and control groups in terms of clinical responses after 12 weeks [23, 24, 26, 39]. A similar result was shown in terms of the changes in IBS-SSS and IBS-QOL after 8–12 weeks. We also observed high heterogeneity amongst studies, suggesting that caution is needed in interpreting results. No serious adverse events were related to FMT in IBS. The GRADE assessments indicated that the CoE for all clinical outcomes in our study was very low.

Various delivery routes are currently utilised for FMT. They include oesophagogastroduodenoscopy; nasogastric, nasojejunal or nasoduodenal tube; colonoscopy; rectal enema and oral capsule delivery. Our subgroup analyses revealed that the route of FMT delivery significantly influenced its efficacy. FMT delivered via routes with more direct delivery to the gut, such as endoscopy, nasojejunal tube, or rectal enema, significantly improved all three outcomes, including clinical response, change in IBS-SSS and change in IBS-QOL compared to control. In contrast, oral capsule FMT did not demonstrate any benefits, suggesting that direct delivery to the target site may be more effective. Several biological and physiological factors may explain the superiority of direct delivery routes. Firstly, the live bacterial counts of FMT capsules range widely from 100 million bacteria per capsule to 100 billion bacteria per capsule and decline rapidly over time, reaching only 10% of their initial values after 24 hours [40]. This rapid decline in bacterial viability can significantly impact the effectiveness of the treatment. Secondly, the capsules expose bacteria to harsh gastric conditions, reducing bacterial viability and colonisation potential in the gut [41, 42]. Direct delivery methods like endoscopic, nasojejunal and rectal enema bypass the stomach, allowing for better survival and engraftment of the transplanted microbiota. [43] Thirdly, the gastrointestinal tract, particularly the lower intestines, is an anaerobic environment. Many of the beneficial gut microorganisms, such as obligate anaerobes, are highly sensitive to oxygen exposure [44]. Oral capsules may expose these anaerobic microorganisms to oxygen during transit through the upper gastrointestinal tract, potentially compromising their viability and functionality. Direct delivery minimises exposure to oxygen, maintaining the anaerobic environment necessary for these microorganisms to thrive. [45] Lastly, deviations from recommended protocols, such as using suboptimal doses or improper storage conditions, may have decreased the efficacy of oral capsule FMT in some studies. As noted previously by Rodrigues et al. [39] the recommended dose for a faecal transplant is 30 g. However, Aroniadis et al. administered less than the recommended dose. [14] In addition, Halkjaer et al. stored their final faecal suspensions at − 20 °C [11], whereas guidelines suggest storage at − 80 °C [46]. These deviations from the recommended protocol may have decreased the efficacy of oral capsule FMT, thereby diminishing the overall pooled effect of its efficacy.

Another emerging way to deliver FMT is colonic transendoscopic enteral tubing (TET), which has shown potential in treating various gut disorders, including IBS [47]. This procedure involves inserting a long, soft tube through the rectum into the colon using a colonoscope to infuse the faecal suspension directly into the colonic region. This tube allows for targeted infusion of the faecal suspension throughout the colonic region [47]. Compared to traditional colonoscopic delivery, TET is less invasive, better tolerated by patients and eliminates the need for full colon preparation [47]. Growing evidence suggests that administering FMT through a colonic TET could serve as a promising and more patient-friendly treatment strategy for patients with inflammatory bowel disease [47]. A recent prospective observational study by Zhang et al. demonstrated that washed microbiota transplantation delivered via mid-gut TET in 12 patients (16.4%) and colonic TET in 61 patients (83%) effectively improved both gastrointestinal and extraintestinal symptoms in individuals with IBS [48]. Despite these promising findings, further research through rigorous clinical trials specifically evaluating colonic TET-delivered FMT for IBS treatment is necessary.

The quality of the pooled studies could affect the reported effectiveness of FMT treatment. In our study, subgroup analysis based on overall RoB showed that in studies with a low RoB, the patients who received FMT had a significant improvement in all clinical outcomes, suggesting that methodological rigour is crucial in evaluating the true efficacy of FMT. Potential biases like inadequate allocation concealment, lack of blinding and high dropout rates may have obscured true effects in lower-quality studies. Further large-scale, high-quality RCTs are warranted to confirm the therapeutic role of FMT in the management of IBS.

Our study also analysed the effect of different faecal origins on FMT and its efficacy in patients with IBS. The results of subgroup analysis did not reveal a significant clinical response to FMT samples from single or mixed donors and in patients who received FMT using fresh, frozen or mixed stool samples. However, due to the limited sample size of our study, further research is needed to reach a conclusion on the preferable type of faeces.

The present study has several limitations. One major limitation is the heterogeneity of the enrolled participants, which persisted even after extensive subgroup analyses. This heterogeneity can be attributed to several factors. Firstly, the enrolled participants exhibited high heterogeneity, with variations in the diagnostic criteria employed IBS as well as the specific IBS subtypes represented. These RCTs included participants with different IBS subtypes (IBS-C, IBS-D, IBS-M, IBS-U) and most of the RCTs included a mixture of patients with differing IBS subtypes, which may respond differently to FMT due to varying underlying pathophysiologies. This variation makes it challenging to determine whether FMT efficacy differs among IBS subtypes. Future studies should focus on specific IBS subtypes to identify patient populations most likely to benefit from FMT.

Secondly, the inclusion criteria for symptom severity varied across studies. Some included participants with more severe IBS symptoms (e.g. IBS Symptom Severity Score (IBS-SSS) ≥ 175) [11, 12, 14, 15, 20], while others did not specify symptom severity criteria, potentially leading to differences in treatment response [13, 16, 18, 19, 21]. Furthermore, utilising different diagnostic criteria, Rome IV versus Rome III, leads to the inclusion of distinct patient populations with varying disease severities, as Rome IV criteria tend to identify individuals with a more severe clinical presentation of IBS [48, 49]. This discrepancy in the recruited cohorts based on diagnostic criteria introduces a fundamental difference in the study populations, complicating the interpretation and comparison of treatment outcomes across studies. Future studies should focus on implementing standardised symptom severity criteria and unified diagnostic standards (preferably Rome IV) across all trials. Studies are recommended to incorporate pre-planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses to evaluate the impact of different inclusion criteria on outcomes.

Thirdly, the FMT interventions differed in terms of their origin, dosage, therapy duration, frequency, comparators and study protocols, making it difficult to analyse and compare the results. The dosages of donor stool ranged from 25 capsules (50g) to a single dose of 30-80g, and the frequency of administration varied from a single dose to multiple doses over several days. The placebo interventions varied across studies, with some using autologous stool transplantation and others using inert capsules or solutions. These variations may differently impact the gut microbiota, placebo response and the relative efficacy of FMT. Additionally, several studies lacked clear reporting of the inclusion and exclusion criteria used for donor selection, which may limit the generalisability of the findings. To enhance consistency and reproducibility, future trials should adopt a comprehensive, standardised protocol that includes donor screening and selection, FMT dosage, frequency, duration and placebo interventions, all guided by the latest consensus statements on best practices for FMT [50–52].

The heterogeneity observed in our meta-analysis, arising from the diverse features discussed, underscores the complex and multifaceted nature of both IBS and FMT as a therapeutic intervention. Although this heterogeneity limits the robustness of our conclusions, it also offers valuable insights into the factors that may influence the efficacy of FMT in treating IBS.

Another limitation of our study is that the included RCTs primarily focused on gut-specific symptoms like abdominal pain, bloating and bowel habits (i.e. IBS-SSS) and their impacts on quality of life (i.e. IBS-QOL). However, it’s crucial to recognise that IBS is a multifaceted condition that affects more than just the gastrointestinal system, and these broader effects can significantly impair a patient’s quality of life [53]. Psychological distress, including anxiety and depression, is common among IBS patients, influencing various aspects like gut physiology and immune response through the gut–brain axis [54]. Unfortunately, most RCTs do not adequately capture these outcomes, leading to a high degree of variability among studies that do include them. Guo et al. focused on patients with IBS-D who also suffered from depression and anxiety [18]. Their findings revealed that FMT therapy reduced not only gastrointestinal symptoms but also anxiety and depression. [18] Conversely, studies by Aroniadis et al., Mazzawi et al., Holster et al. and Lahtinen et al. reported no significant effect of FMT on depression and anxiety [13, 14, 16, 19]. Notably, Mazzawi et al. and Lahtinen et al. did not provide baseline data on depression and anxiety [16, 19], and Holster et al. explicitly excluded patients with depression prior to intervention [13]. Factors like concurrent psychological disorders, diet variations, co-medications and follow-up care are often overlooked in current RCTs, potentially limiting the efficacy evaluation of FMT for IBS [55]. Future research should adopt a comprehensive approach, including standardised tools to assess not only gastrointestinal symptoms but also psychological health and other relevant outcomes.

Despite these limitations, our study provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of FMT for IBS treatment. While the overall pooled estimates did not show a significant benefit of FMT, the subgroup analyses suggest that FMT, particularly when delivered via endoscopy, nasojejunal tube, or rectal enema, and in well-designed studies, may be an effective treatment option for improving symptoms and quality of life in IBS patients. However, the certainty of evidence was rated as “very low” due to concerns about bias, heterogeneity and imprecision, indicating limited confidence in the effect estimates. The true effect may differ from the estimates presented in our meta-analysis. Although the TSA results for the most important outcome, clinical response, suggest that the current evidence is a true positive, the sample size remains insufficient to draw a definitive conclusion. This inadequacy in sample size leads to a downgrade in the GRADE assessment in the domain of imprecision. Further well-designed studies with more participants should strive to standardise study designs, donor screening, treatment protocols, outcome metrics and the stratification of participants by IBS subtype to enhance the consistency and applicability of FMT research in IBS. It is imperative to explore potential effect modifiers through pre-specified subgroup analyses and meta-regression, as well as to examine the long-term effects and safety of FMT, to effectively integrate these findings into clinical practice.

Conclusion

This study revealed that while the overall pooled estimates did not show a significant benefit of FMT for IBS, subgroup analyses revealed that FMT delivered via routes with more direct delivery to the gut, such as endoscopy, nasojejunal tube, or rectal enema, and in well-designed studies, may be an effective treatment option for improving symptoms and quality of life in IBS patients. The overall certainty of evidence was very low and the TSA indicated that the current evidence is inconclusive. Therefore, larger well-designed randomised controlled trials with rigorous methodology are warranted. Future studies should aim to standardise protocols for donor screening, treatment regimens and outcome assessments to enhance the consistency and clinical applicability of findings.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1: Table 1. Search strategy

Supplementary material 2: Table 2. GRADE evidence profile: FMT for patients with IBS

Supplementary material 3: Figure 1. RoB summary

Supplementary material 4: Figure 2. Forest plot of the clinical responses of patients with IBS to FMT or the placeboSubgroup analysis based on FMT samples from single or mixed donor stoolSubgroup analysis based on FMT stool from a fresh, frozen or mixed sample

Supplementary material 5: Figure 3. Funnel plot with Egger’s test

Acknowledgements

None.

Author contributions

Chiung-Yu Chen and Pei Chun Lai conducted the concept of the study. Sha-Wei Lo, Tsung Hsuan Hung and Ching-Ju Fang performed the search. Sha-Wei Lo and Chun-Shen Lee performed quality assessment. Yen Tsen Lin and Tsung Hsuan Hung extract the data and prepared the figures. Sha-Wei Lo, Tsung Hsuan Hung and Pei Chun Lai wrote the main manuscript text. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Higher Education Sprout Project, Ministry of Education to the Headquarters of University Advancement at National Cheng Kung University; National Cheng Kung University Hospital under Grant NCKUH-11209002, NCKUH-11203014.

Availability of data and materials

Most of the data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information flies. Other datasets associated with the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

All authors have agreed to the publication of this manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Shao-Wei Lo and Tsung-Hsuan Hung have contributed equally to the work.
==== Refs
References

1. Lacy BE Mearin F Chang L Chey WD Lembo AJ Simren M Bowel disorders Gastroenterology 2016 150 6 1393 407 10.1053/j.gastro.2016.02.031
Lacy BE, Mearin F, Chang L, Chey WD, Lembo AJ, Simren M, et al. Bowel disorders. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(6):1393–407.
2. Sperber AD Dumitrascu D Fukudo S Gerson C Ghoshal UC Gwee KA The global prevalence of IBS in adults remains elusive due to the heterogeneity of studies: a Rome Foundation working team literature review Gut 2017 66 6 1075 1082 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-311240 26818616
Sperber AD, Dumitrascu D, Fukudo S, Gerson C, Ghoshal UC, Gwee KA, et al. The global prevalence of IBS in adults remains elusive due to the heterogeneity of studies: a Rome Foundation working team literature review. Gut. 2017;66(6):1075–82.26818616
3. Glynn E Galambosi G Boland K Resolution of weight loss, systemic illness, and fever after triple therapy: a surprising response to treatment of positive urease test Gastroenterology 2021 160 5 e1 e3 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.056 32777285
Glynn E, Galambosi G, Boland K. Resolution of weight loss, systemic illness, and fever after triple therapy: a surprising response to treatment of positive urease test. Gastroenterology. 2021;160(5):e1–3.32777285
4. Kim KO Gluck M Fecal microbiota transplantation: an update on clinical practice Clinical endoscopy 2019 52 2 137 143 10.5946/ce.2019.009 30909689
Kim KO, Gluck M. Fecal microbiota transplantation: an update on clinical practice. Clinical endoscopy. 2019;52(2):137–43.30909689
5. Staley C Khoruts A Sadowsky MJ Contemporary applications of fecal microbiota transplantation to treat intestinal diseases in humans Arch Med Res 2017 48 8 766 773 10.1016/j.arcmed.2017.11.006 29183720
Staley C, Khoruts A, Sadowsky MJ. Contemporary applications of fecal microbiota transplantation to treat intestinal diseases in humans. Arch Med Res. 2017;48(8):766–73.29183720
6. Borody T Fischer M Mitchell S Campbell J Fecal microbiota transplantation in gastrointestinal disease: 2015 update and the road ahead Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015 9 11 1379 1391 10.1586/17474124.2015.1086267 26414076
Borody T, Fischer M, Mitchell S, Campbell J. Fecal microbiota transplantation in gastrointestinal disease: 2015 update and the road ahead. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;9(11):1379–91.26414076
7. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Enforcement Policy Regarding Investigational New Drug Requirements for Use of Fecal Microbiota for Transplantation to Treat Clostridium difficile Infection Not Responsive to Standard Therapies. 2022. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/enforcement-policy-regarding-investigational-new-drug-requirements-use-fecal-microbiota.
8. Wang L Alammar N Singh R Nanavati J Song Y Chaudhary R Gut microbial dysbiosis in the irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case–control studies J Acad Nutr Diet 2020 120 4 565 586 10.1016/j.jand.2019.05.015 31473156
Wang L, Alammar N, Singh R, Nanavati J, Song Y, Chaudhary R, et al. Gut microbial dysbiosis in the irritable bowel syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case–control studies. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2020;120(4):565–86.31473156
9. Ghaisas S Maher J Kanthasamy A Gut microbiome in health and disease: linking the microbiome–gut–brain axis and environmental factors in the pathogenesis of systemic and neurodegenerative diseases Pharmacol Ther 2016 158 52 62 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2015.11.012 26627987
Ghaisas S, Maher J, Kanthasamy A. Gut microbiome in health and disease: linking the microbiome–gut–brain axis and environmental factors in the pathogenesis of systemic and neurodegenerative diseases. Pharmacol Ther. 2016;158:52–62.26627987
10. Chang C Lin H Dysbiosis in gastrointestinal disorders Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2016 30 1 3 15 10.1016/j.bpg.2016.02.001 27048892
Chang C, Lin H. Dysbiosis in gastrointestinal disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2016;30(1):3–15.27048892
11. Halkjær SI Christensen AH Lo BZS Browne PD Günther S Hansen LH Faecal microbiota transplantation alters gut microbiota in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: results from a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled study Gut 2018 67 12 2107 2115 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-316434 29980607
Halkjær SI, Christensen AH, Lo BZS, Browne PD, Günther S, Hansen LH, et al. Faecal microbiota transplantation alters gut microbiota in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: results from a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled study. Gut. 2018;67(12):2107–15.29980607
12. Johnsen PH Hilpüsch F Cavanagh JP Leikanger IS Kolstad C Valle PC Faecal microbiota transplantation versus placebo for moderate-to-severe irritable bowel syndrome: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, single-centre trial Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018 3 1 17 24 10.1016/S2468-1253(17)30338-2 29100842
Johnsen PH, Hilpüsch F, Cavanagh JP, Leikanger IS, Kolstad C, Valle PC, et al. Faecal microbiota transplantation versus placebo for moderate-to-severe irritable bowel syndrome: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, single-centre trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;3(1):17–24.29100842
13. Holster S Lindqvist CM Repsilber D Salonen A de Vos WM König J The effect of allogenic versus autologous fecal microbiota transfer on symptoms, visceral perception and fecal and mucosal microbiota in irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized controlled study Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2019 10 4 e00034 10.14309/ctg.0000000000000034 31009405
Holster S, Lindqvist CM, Repsilber D, Salonen A, de Vos WM, König J, et al. The effect of allogenic versus autologous fecal microbiota transfer on symptoms, visceral perception and fecal and mucosal microbiota in irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized controlled study. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2019;10(4):e00034.31009405
14. Aroniadis OC Brandt LJ Oneto C Feuerstadt P Sherman A Wolkoff AW Faecal microbiota transplantation for diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019 4 9 675 685 10.1016/S2468-1253(19)30198-0 31326345
Aroniadis OC, Brandt LJ, Oneto C, Feuerstadt P, Sherman A, Wolkoff AW, et al. Faecal microbiota transplantation for diarrhoea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;4(9):675–85.31326345
15. El-Salhy M Hatlebakk JG Gilja OH Kristoffersen AB Hausken T Efficacy of faecal microbiota transplantation for patients with irritable bowel syndrome in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study Gut 2020 69 5 859 867 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319630 31852769
El-Salhy M, Hatlebakk JG, Gilja OH, Kristoffersen AB, Hausken T. Efficacy of faecal microbiota transplantation for patients with irritable bowel syndrome in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Gut. 2020;69(5):859–67.31852769
16. Lahtinen P Jalanka J Hartikainen A Mattila E Hillilä M Punkkinen J Randomised clinical trial: faecal microbiota transplantation versus autologous placebo administered via colonoscopy in irritable bowel syndrome Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2020 51 12 1321 1331 10.1111/apt.15740 32343000
Lahtinen P, Jalanka J, Hartikainen A, Mattila E, Hillilä M, Punkkinen J, et al. Randomised clinical trial: faecal microbiota transplantation versus autologous placebo administered via colonoscopy in irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2020;51(12):1321–31.32343000
17. Holvoet T Joossens M Vázquez-Castellanos JF Christiaens E Heyerick L Boelens J Fecal microbiota transplantation reduces symptoms in some patients with irritable bowel syndrome with predominant abdominal bloating: short-and long-term results from a placebo-controlled randomized trial Gastroenterology 2021 160 1 145 57 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.07.013 32681922
Holvoet T, Joossens M, Vázquez-Castellanos JF, Christiaens E, Heyerick L, Boelens J, et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation reduces symptoms in some patients with irritable bowel syndrome with predominant abdominal bloating: short-and long-term results from a placebo-controlled randomized trial. Gastroenterology. 2021;160(1):145–57.32681922
18. Guo Q Lin H Chen P Tan S Wen Z Lin L Dynamic changes of intestinal flora in patients with irritable bowel syndrome combined with anxiety and depression after oral administration of enterobacteria capsules Bioengineered 2021 12 2 11885 11897 10.1080/21655979.2021.1999374 34923901
Guo Q, Lin H, Chen P, Tan S, Wen Z, Lin L, et al. Dynamic changes of intestinal flora in patients with irritable bowel syndrome combined with anxiety and depression after oral administration of enterobacteria capsules. Bioengineered. 2021;12(2):11885–97.34923901
19. Mazzawi T Hausken T Refsnes PF Hatlebakk JG Lied GA The effect of anaerobically cultivated human intestinal microbiota compared to fecal microbiota transplantation on gut microbiota profile and symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome, a double-blind placebo-controlled study Microorganisms 2022 10 9 1819 10.3390/microorganisms10091819 36144420
Mazzawi T, Hausken T, Refsnes PF, Hatlebakk JG, Lied GA. The effect of anaerobically cultivated human intestinal microbiota compared to fecal microbiota transplantation on gut microbiota profile and symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome, a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Microorganisms. 2022;10(9):1819.36144420
20. Singh P Alm EJ Kelley JM Cheng V Smith M Kassam Z Effect of antibiotic pretreatment on bacterial engraftment after Fecal Microbiota Transplant (FMT) in IBS-D Gut microbes 2022 14 1 2020067 10.1080/19490976.2021.2020067 35014601
Singh P, Alm EJ, Kelley JM, Cheng V, Smith M, Kassam Z, et al. Effect of antibiotic pretreatment on bacterial engraftment after Fecal Microbiota Transplant (FMT) in IBS-D. Gut microbes. 2022;14(1):2020067.35014601
21. Aumpan N Pornthisarn B Chonprasertsuk S Siramolpiwat S Bhanthumkomol P Nunanan P Effect of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) on irritable bowel syndrome (IBS): a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study Gastroenterology 2022 162 7 S936 S7 10.1016/S0016-5085(22)62221-2
Aumpan N, Pornthisarn B, Chonprasertsuk S, Siramolpiwat S, Bhanthumkomol P, Nunanan P, et al. Effect of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) on irritable bowel syndrome (IBS): a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Gastroenterology. 2022;162(7):S936–7.
22. Yau YK Su Q Xu Z Lin H Chen P Tan S Randomised clinical trial: faecal microbiota transplantation for irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2023 58 8 795 804 10.1111/apt.17703 37667968
Yau YK, Su Q, Xu Z, Lin H, Chen P, Tan S, et al. Randomised clinical trial: faecal microbiota transplantation for irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhoea. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2023;58(8):795–804. 10.1111/apt.17703.37667968
23. Samuthpongtorn C Kantagowit P Pittayanon R Patcharatrakul T Gonlachanvit S Fecal microbiota transplantation in irritable bowel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Front Med 2022 10.3389/fmed.2022.1039284
Samuthpongtorn C, Kantagowit P, Pittayanon R, Patcharatrakul T, Gonlachanvit S. Fecal microbiota transplantation in irritable bowel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Med. 2022. 10.3389/fmed.2022.1039284.
24. Wu J Lv L Wang C Efficacy of fecal microbiota transplantation in irritable bowel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2022 10.3389/fcimb.2022.827395 36846550
Wu J, Lv L, Wang C. Efficacy of fecal microbiota transplantation in irritable bowel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022. 10.3389/fcimb.2022.827395.36846550
25. Elhusein AM Fadlalmola HA Efficacy of fecal microbiota transplantation in irritable bowel syndrome patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis Gastroenterol Nurs 2022 45 1 11 20 10.1097/SGA.0000000000000652 35108241
Elhusein AM, Fadlalmola HA. Efficacy of fecal microbiota transplantation in irritable bowel syndrome patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2022;45(1):11–20.35108241
26. Abdelghafar YA AbdelQadir YH Motawea KR Nasr SA Omran HAM Belal MM Efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplant in irritable bowel syndrome: an update based on meta-analysis of randomized control trials Health Sci Rep 2022 5 5 e814 10.1002/hsr2.814 36110348
Abdelghafar YA, AbdelQadir YH, Motawea KR, Nasr SA, Omran HAM, Belal MM, et al. Efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplant in irritable bowel syndrome: an update based on meta-analysis of randomized control trials. Health Sci Rep. 2022;5(5):e814.36110348
27. Balduzzi S Rücker G Schwarzer G How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial BMJ Ment Health 2019 22 4 153 160
Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. BMJ Ment Health. 2019;22(4):153–60.
28. Sterne JA Savović J Page MJ Elbers RG Blencowe NS Boutron I RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials BMJ 2019 10.1136/bmj.l4898 31533922
Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019. 10.1136/bmj.l4898.31533922
29. Higgins J Tompson S Deeks J Altman D A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of smart-learning BMJ 2003 327 1 557 560 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 12958120
Higgins J, Tompson S, Deeks J, Altman D. A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of smart-learning. BMJ. 2003;327(1):557–60.12958120
30. Kang H Trial sequential analysis: novel approach for meta-analysis Anesth Pain Med 2021 16 2 138 150 10.17085/apm.21038
Kang H. Trial sequential analysis: novel approach for meta-analysis. Anesth Pain Med. 2021;16(2):138–50.
31. Chen P-C Lai C-H Fang C-J Lai PC Huang YT Intravenous infusion of lidocaine for bowel function recovery after major colorectal surgery: a critical appraisal through updated meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, certainty of evidence, and meta-regression Front Med 2022 10.3389/fmed.2021.759215 36580234
Chen P-C, Lai C-H, Fang C-J, Lai PC, Huang YT. Intravenous infusion of lidocaine for bowel function recovery after major colorectal surgery: a critical appraisal through updated meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, certainty of evidence, and meta-regression. Front Med. 2022. 10.3389/fmed.2021.759215.36580234
32. Sterna J Sutton A Ioannidis J Terrin N Jones D Lau J Recommendations for examining und interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in metaanalyses of randomized controlled trials BMJ 2011 343 d4002 10.1136/bmj.d4002 21784880
Sterna J, Sutton A, Ioannidis J, Terrin N, Jones D, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining und interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in metaanalyses of randomized controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4002.21784880
33. Group GW Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations BMJ 2004 328 7454 1490 10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 15205295
Group GW. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.15205295
34. Peery AF Crockett SD Murphy CC Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: update 2021 Gastroenterology 2022 162 2 621 644 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.10.017 34678215
Peery AF, Crockett SD, Murphy CC, et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic diseases in the United States: update 2021. Gastroenterology. 2022;162(2):621–44.34678215
35. Black CJ Ford AC Global burden of irritable bowel syndrome: trends, predictions and risk factors Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020 17 8 473 486 10.1038/s41575-020-0286-8 32296140
Black CJ, Ford AC. Global burden of irritable bowel syndrome: trends, predictions and risk factors. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020;17(8):473–86.32296140
36. Ghaffari P Shoaie S Nielsen LK Irritable bowel syndrome and microbiome; switching from conventional diagnosis and therapies to personalized interventions J Transl Med 2022 20 1 173 10.1186/s12967-022-03365-z 35410233
Ghaffari P, Shoaie S, Nielsen LK. Irritable bowel syndrome and microbiome; switching from conventional diagnosis and therapies to personalized interventions. J Transl Med. 2022;20(1):173.35410233
37. Simon E Călinoiu LF Mitrea L Vodnar DC Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics: implications and beneficial effects against irritable bowel syndrome Nutrients 2021 13 6 2112 10.3390/nu13062112 34203002
Simon E, Călinoiu LF, Mitrea L, Vodnar DC. Probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics: implications and beneficial effects against irritable bowel syndrome. Nutrients. 2021;13(6):2112.34203002
38. Singh P Lembo A Emerging role of the gut microbiome in irritable bowel syndrome Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2021 50 3 523 545 10.1016/j.gtc.2021.03.003 34304786
Singh P, Lembo A. Emerging role of the gut microbiome in irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2021;50(3):523–45.34304786
39. Rodrigues T Rodrigues Fialho S Araújo JR Rocha R Moreira-Rosário A Procedures in fecal microbiota transplantation for treating irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis J Clin Med 2023 12 5 1725 10.3390/jcm12051725 36902512
Rodrigues T, Rodrigues Fialho S, Araújo JR, Rocha R, Moreira-Rosário A. Procedures in fecal microbiota transplantation for treating irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Med. 2023;12(5):1725.36902512
40. Verdier C Denis S Gasc C Boucinha L Uriot O Delmas D An oral FMT capsule as efficient as an enema for microbiota reconstruction following disruption by antibiotics, as assessed in an in vitro human gut model Microorganisms 2021 9 2 358 10.3390/microorganisms9020358 33670255
Verdier C, Denis S, Gasc C, Boucinha L, Uriot O, Delmas D, et al. An oral FMT capsule as efficient as an enema for microbiota reconstruction following disruption by antibiotics, as assessed in an in vitro human gut model. Microorganisms. 2021;9(2):358.33670255
41. Gulati M Singh SK Corrie L Kaur IP Chandwani L Delivery routes for faecal microbiota transplants: available, anticipated and aspired Pharmacol Res 2020 159 104954 10.1016/j.phrs.2020.104954 32492490
Gulati M, Singh SK, Corrie L, Kaur IP, Chandwani L. Delivery routes for faecal microbiota transplants: available, anticipated and aspired. Pharmacol Res. 2020;159:104954.32492490
42. Furuya-Kanamori L Paterson DL Helms SK Yakob L McKenzie SJ Garborg K Upper versus lower gastrointestinal delivery for transplantation of fecal microbiota in recurrent or refractory Clostridium difficile infection J Clin Gastroenterol 2017 51 2 145 150 10.1097/MCG.0000000000000511 26974758
Furuya-Kanamori L, Paterson DL, Helms SK, Yakob L, McKenzie SJ, Garborg K, et al. Upper versus lower gastrointestinal delivery for transplantation of fecal microbiota in recurrent or refractory Clostridium difficile infection. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;51(2):145–50.26974758
43. Ianiro G Maida M Burisch J Efficacy of different faecal microbiota transplantation protocols for Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis United Eur Gastroenterol J 2018 6 8 1232 1244 10.1177/2050640618780762
Ianiro G, Maida M, Burisch J, et al. Efficacy of different faecal microbiota transplantation protocols for Clostridium difficile infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2018;6(8):1232–44.
44. Maier E Anderson RC Roy NC Understanding how commensal obligate anaerobic bacteria regulate immune functions in the large intestine Nutrients 2014 7 1 45 73 10.3390/nu7010045 25545102
Maier E, Anderson RC, Roy NC. Understanding how commensal obligate anaerobic bacteria regulate immune functions in the large intestine. Nutrients. 2014;7(1):45–73.25545102
45. Fadda HM The route to palatable fecal microbiota transplantation AAPS PharmSciTech 2020 21 3 114 10.1208/s12249-020-1637-z 32296975
Fadda HM. The route to palatable fecal microbiota transplantation. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2020;21(3):114.32296975
46. Costello SP Conlon MA Vuaran MS Roberts-Thomson IC Andrews JM Faecal microbiota transplant for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection using long-term frozen stool is effective: clinical efficacy and bacterial viability data Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2015 42 8 1011 1018 10.1111/apt.13366 26264455
Costello SP, Conlon MA, Vuaran MS, Roberts-Thomson IC, Andrews JM. Faecal microbiota transplant for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection using long-term frozen stool is effective: clinical efficacy and bacterial viability data. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015;42(8):1011–8.26264455
47. Wang W Lu G Wu X Wen Q Zhang F Colonic transendoscopic enteral tubing is a new pathway to microbial therapy, colonic drainage, and host-microbiota interaction research J Clin Med 2023 12 3 780 10.3390/jcm12030780 36769429
Wang W, Lu G, Wu X, Wen Q, Zhang F. Colonic transendoscopic enteral tubing is a new pathway to microbial therapy, colonic drainage, and host-microbiota interaction research. J Clin Med. 2023;12(3):780.36769429
48. Keller JJ Ooijevaar RE Hvas CL A standardised model for stool banking for faecal microbiota transplantation: a consensus report from a multidisciplinary UEG working group United Eur Gastroenterol J 2021 9 2 229 247 10.1177/2050640620967898
Keller JJ, Ooijevaar RE, Hvas CL, et al. A standardised model for stool banking for faecal microbiota transplantation: a consensus report from a multidisciplinary UEG working group. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2021;9(2):229–47.
49. Barberio B Houghton LA Yiannakou Y Symptom stability in Rome IV vs. Rome III irritable bowel syndrome Am J Gastroenterol 2021 116 362 371 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000946 33009062
Barberio B, Houghton LA, Yiannakou Y, et al. Symptom stability in Rome IV vs. Rome III irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021;116:362–71.33009062
50. Zhang Z Li Q Zhang S Washed microbiota transplantation targeting both gastrointestinal and extraintestinal symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2023 127 110839 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2023.110839 37562707
Zhang Z, Li Q, Zhang S, et al. Washed microbiota transplantation targeting both gastrointestinal and extraintestinal symptoms in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2023;127:110839.37562707
51. Cammarota G Ianiro G Kelly CR International consensus conference on stool banking for faecal microbiota transplantation in clinical practice Gut 2019 68 12 2111 2121 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319548 31563878
Cammarota G, Ianiro G, Kelly CR, et al. International consensus conference on stool banking for faecal microbiota transplantation in clinical practice. Gut. 2019;68(12):2111–21.31563878
52. Haifer C Kelly CR Paramsothy S Australian consensus statements for the regulation, production and use of faecal microbiota transplantation in clinical practice Gut 2020 69 5 801 810 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-320260 32047093
Haifer C, Kelly CR, Paramsothy S, et al. Australian consensus statements for the regulation, production and use of faecal microbiota transplantation in clinical practice. Gut. 2020;69(5):801–10.32047093
53. Goodoory VC Houghton LA Yiannakou Y Natural history and disease impact of Rome IV vs. Rome III irritable bowel syndrome: a longitudinal follow-up study Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022 20 569 577 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.04.043 33957271
Goodoory VC, Houghton LA, Yiannakou Y, et al. Natural history and disease impact of Rome IV vs. Rome III irritable bowel syndrome: a longitudinal follow-up study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20:569–77.33957271
54. Hillestad EMR van der Meeren A Nagaraja BH Gut bless you: the microbiota–gut–brain axis in irritable bowel syndrome World J Gastroenterol 2022 28 4 412 431 10.3748/wjg.v28.i4.412 35125827
Hillestad EMR, van der Meeren A, Nagaraja BH, et al. Gut bless you: the microbiota–gut–brain axis in irritable bowel syndrome. World J Gastroenterol. 2022;28(4):412–31.35125827
55. Camilleri M Diagnosis and treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a review JAMA 2021 325 9 865 877 10.1001/jama.2020.22532 33651094
Camilleri M. Diagnosis and treatment of irritable bowel syndrome: a review. JAMA. 2021;325(9):865–77.33651094
