Title: Safety Comparison of Single-Donor and Pooled Fecal Microbiota Transfer Product
Preparation in Ulcerative Colitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 01 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
This systematic review and meta-analysis by Laperrousaz et al builds on a prior meta-analysis
conducted by the same group in 2023 that evaluated the efficacy of single donor (SDN) and
multi-donor (MDN) strategies of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for patients with
ulcerative colitis (UC).
In the current manuscript, they now assess the safety of SDN and MDN FMT for patients with
UC by evaluating the number of adverse events and severe adverse events encountered by studies
they included. They found similar safety profiles for both strategies, though MDN FMT was
seen to have a greater risk-ratio as compared to SDN FMT.
While this study is thorough and organized, the main concern stems from the variability of how
an adverse event and a serious adverse event is defined in each included study. The authors do
not have their own criteria of defining these events. Moreover, the timeframe in which these
events occur, is also prudent to truly understand the safety profile of these two different FMT
formulations.
The authors have recognized this fact as their limitation. Perhaps they could consider softening
the conclusions and advising a word of caution to the readers into interpreting the results.
Title: Safety Comparison of Single-Donor and Pooled Fecal Microbiota Transfer Product
Preparation in Ulcerative Colitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 01 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
This systematic review and meta-analysis by Laperrousaz et al builds on a prior meta-analysis
conducted by the same group in 2023 that evaluated the efficacy of single donor (SDN) and
multi-donor (MDN) strategies of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for patients with
ulcerative colitis (UC).
In the current manuscript, they now assess the safety of SDN and MDN FMT for patients with
UC by evaluating the number of adverse events and severe adverse events encountered by studies
they included. They found similar safety profiles for both strategies, though MDN FMT was
seen to have a greater risk-ratio as compared to SDN FMT.
While this study is thorough and organized, the main concern stems from the variability of how
an adverse event and a serious adverse event is defined in each included study. The authors do
not have their own criteria of defining these events. Moreover, the timeframe in which these
events occur, is also prudent to truly understand the safety profile of these two different FMT
formulations.
The authors have recognized this fact as their limitation. Perhaps they could consider softening
the conclusions and advising a word of caution to the readers into interpreting the results.
Please review this paper.
user
Title: Safety Comparison of Single-Donor and Pooled Fecal Microbiota Transfer Product
Preparation in Ulcerative Colitis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Version: 2 Date: 01 Aug 2024
Reviewer's report:
This systematic review and meta-analysis by Laperrousaz et al builds on a prior meta-analysis
conducted by the same group in 2023 that evaluated the efficacy of single donor (SDN) and
multi-donor (MDN) strategies of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for patients with
ulcerative colitis (UC).
In the current manuscript, they now assess the safety of SDN and MDN FMT for patients with
UC by evaluating the number of adverse events and severe adverse events encountered by studies
they included. They found similar safety profiles for both strategies, though MDN FMT was
seen to have a greater risk-ratio as compared to SDN FMT.
While this study is thorough and organized, the main concern stems from the variability of how
an adverse event and a serious adverse event is defined in each included study. The authors do
not have their own criteria of defining these events. Moreover, the timeframe in which these
events occur, is also prudent to truly understand the safety profile of these two different FMT
formulations.
The authors have recognized this fact as their limitation. Perhaps they could consider softening
the conclusions and advising a word of caution to the readers into interpreting the results.
assistant