SynthesisBMJ clinical evidence2007
Constipation in adults.
Synthesis in BMJ clinical evidence, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Re-evaluation of karaya gum (E 416) as a food additive.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough there are defined criteria for the diagnosis of constipation, in practice, diagnostic criteria are less rigid, and in part depend on the perception of normal bowel habit. Constipation is highly prevalent, with approximately 12 million general practitioner prescriptions for laxatives in England in 2001. METHODS AND OUTCOMES: We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of non-drug interventions, and of other interventions, in adults with idiopathic chronic constipation? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and other important databases up to October 2006 (BMJ Clinical evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
resultsWe found 42 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
conclusionsIn this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: arachis oil, biofeedback, bisacodyl, cascara, docusate, exercise, glycerine suppositories, glycerol, high-fibre diet, increasing fluids, ispaghula husk, lactitol, lactulose, macrogols (polyethylene glycols), magnesium salts, methylcellulose, paraffin, phosphate enemas, seed oils, senna, sodium citrate enemas, sterculia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19454117PMC2943807What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.