1. Results
1.1. 80% or more of patients were cured 1st Attempt with FT
1.1.1. Youngster et al. (2016)
1.1.2. Brandt et al. (2012)
1.1.3. Walton, Burns, & Gaehle, 2017
1.1.4. Duke & Fardy, 2014
1.1.5. Gau, Harstall, Louie, Zanten, & Dieleman, 2012
1.2. less than 80% cured on 1st attempt of fecal transplant but were cured on 2nd attempt
1.2.1. Russell et al. (2014)
2. Limitations
2.1. There was an absence of a control group
2.1.1. Gau, Harstall, Louie, Zanten, & Dieleman, 2012
2.1.2. Russell et al. (2014)
2.1.3. Duke & Fardy, 2014
2.1.4. Youngster et al. (2016)
2.2. There was potential for recall bias - 17 eligible patients were not reachable by phone or email and not included
2.2.1. Brandt, et al. (2012)
3. Level of Evidence
3.1. Level 3 (controlled trial)
3.1.1. Youngster et al. (2016)
3.1.2. Brandt et al. (2012)
3.1.3. Walton, Burns, & Gaehle, 2017
3.1.4. Russell et al. (2014)
3.2. Level 1
3.2.1. Gau, Harstall, Louie, Zanten, & Dieleman, 2012
3.3. Level 6
3.3.1. Duke and Fardy, 2014
4. Sample
4.1. More than 85 Participants participated in Fecal transplant
4.1.1. Youngster et al. (2016)
4.1.2. Brandt et al. (2012)
4.1.3. Guo, Harstall, Louie, Zanten, & Dieleman, 2012
4.2. Less than 40 Participants participated in the Fecal transplant
4.2.1. Walton, Burns, & Gaehle, 2017
4.2.2. Duke &Fardy, 2014
4.2.3. Russell et al. (2014)
5. Data Collection
5.1. Questionnaire/ Primary -questionnaire and phone calls made post procedure/ RN and family physicians involved with follow up
5.1.1. Walton, Burns, & Gaehle, 2017
5.1.2. Russell et al. (2014)
5.1.3. Brandt et al. (2012)
5.1.4. Duke & Fardy, 2014
5.2. Secondary data/data from included studies was extracted from 7 full case studies- reviewed by a reviewer and cross checked by a 2nd reviewer.
5.2.1. Gua, Harstall, Louie, Zanten, & Dieleman, 2012
5.3. Observation- 8 week follow up assessments/cure rates and adverse events monitored for another 6 months via questionnaire after observation
5.3.1. Youngseter et al. (2016)
6. Gaps
6.1. Research that has concerns for transmission of infection/donor due to Fecal Transplant
6.1.1. Youngster et al. (2016)
6.1.2. Russell, et al. (2014)
6.1.3. Gau, Harstall, Louie, Zanten, & Dielman, 2012
6.2. Need to figure out how to screen donors/what are best donors for Fecal Transplant?
6.2.1. Walton, Burns, & Gaehle, 2017
6.3. Procedures done at home-Canada does not have program for fecal transplant
6.3.1. Duke & Fardy, 2014
6.4. Controlled trials need to be done to further prove the effectiveness of fecal transplant
6.4.1. Brandt, et al. (2012)
7. Purpose
7.1. Focus on proving that Fecal Transplant works and is viable
7.1.1. Youngster et al. (2016)
7.1.1.1. 180 patients with recurrent C-diff were treated with FT at an institution with an 8 week follow up and then 154 stayed with the program until the 6 month check up
7.1.2. Walton, Burns & Gaehle, 2017
7.1.2.1. 36 patients who had C-diff and were unresponsive to pharmacological care were treated with FT to see if would be successful
7.1.3. Duke & Jardy, 2014
7.1.3.1. A case study on a 66year old Canadian with recurrent C-dif- This was first case of FT performed in the province and was under supervision of family doctor and was done outside of a hospital setting.
7.1.4. Russell et al. (2014)
7.1.4.1. 20 patients in hospital setting were evaluated after FMT for safety and rate of the resolution of diarrhea
7.1.5. Gau, Harstall, Louie, Zanten, & Dielman, 2012
7.1.5.1. It is a comprehensive literature search to find relevant and current studies that safety and effectiveness of FT compared to standard care
7.2. Focus was to Report Results FMT
7.2.1. Brandt et al. (2012)
8. Data Analysis
8.1. SPSS
8.1.1. Walton, Burns, & Gaehle, 2017
8.1.2. Brandt et al. (2012)
8.2. Case stud/Qual
8.2.1. Duke & Fardy, 2014
8.3. non-parametric
8.3.1. Russell et al. (2014)
8.4. Systematic Review
8.4.1. Gau, Harstall, Louie, Zanten, & Dieleman, 2012
8.5. ANOVA
8.5.1. Youngster, et al, 2016
9. Design
9.1. Quantitative
9.1.1. Youngster et al. (2016)
9.1.2. Brandt et al. (2012)
9.1.3. Walton, Burns, & Gaehle, 2017
9.1.4. Russell et al. (2014)
9.1.5. Gua, Harstall, Louie, Zanten, & Dielman, 2012
9.2. Qualitative
9.2.1. Duke & Fardy, 2014