OBJECTIVE: Several European and international consensus statements concerning faecal microbiota transplantation have been issued. While these documents provide overall guidance, we aim to provide a detailed description of all processes that relate to the collection, handling and clinical application of human donor stool in this document.
METHODS: Collaborative subgroups of experts on stool banking drafted concepts for all domains pertaining to stool banking. During a working group meeting in the United European Gastroenterology Week 2019 in Barcelona, these concepts were discussed and finalised to be included in our overall guidance document about faecal microbiota transplantation.
RESULTS: A guidance document for all domains pertaining to stool banking was created. This document includes standard operating manuals for several processes involved with stool banking, such as handling of donor material, storage and donor screening.
CONCLUSION: The implementation of faecal microbiota transplantation by stool banks in concordance with our guidance document will enable quality assurance and guarantee the availability of donor faeces preparations for patients.
METHODOLOGY: Data were collected form 5310 patients in 249 private clinics. The patients evaluated their satisfaction on the quality of service on the basis of nine criteria that comprised 31 subcriteria. We used multicriteria satisfaction analysis (MUSA) to analyze the data.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION: The data analysis results showed low level of satisfaction on the health care quality services offered by the private clinics in Yemen. The majority of the criteria and subcriteria showed low level of satisfaction, high demand, and high mandate for improvement.
METHODS: The agreement indices (or pass rates) for global and local gamma evaluation, maximum allowed dose difference (MADD) and divide and conquer (D&C) techniques were calculated using a selection of acceptance criteria for 429 patient-specific pretreatment quality assurance measurements. Regression analysis was used to quantify the similarity of behavior of each technique, to determine whether possible variations in sensitivity might be present.
RESULTS: The results demonstrated that the behavior of D&C gamma analysis and MADD box analysis differs from any other dose comparison techniques, whereas MADD gamma analysis exhibits similar performance to the standard global gamma analysis. Local gamma analysis had the least variation in behavior with criteria selection. Agreement indices calculated for 2%/2 mm and 2%/3 mm, and 3%/2 mm and 3%/3 mm were correlated for most comparison techniques.
CONCLUSION: Radiation oncology treatment centers looking to compare between different dose comparison techniques, criteria or lower dose thresholds may apply the results of this study to estimate the expected change in calculated agreement indices and possible variation in sensitivity to delivery dose errors.