Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21317993›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2011

Current management strategies and therapeutic targets in chronic constipation.

Anton Emmanuel

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. MASCC recommendations on the management of constipation in patients with advanced cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Guideline
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Management of chronic constipation in patients with diabetes mellitus.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2017
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anton EmmanuelSenior Lecturer and Consultant Gastroenterologist, GI Physiology Unit, University College Hospital, 25 Grafton Way, London WC1E 6DB, UK.
University College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Constipated patients who are refractory to simple lifestyle interventions will usually resort to laxatives, whether prescribed or over the counter. Clinical trial evidence is scarce for older medications such as laxatives, especially with a condition as chronic and subjective as constipation. Newer polyethylene glycol-based laxatives have been investigated under rigorous clinical trial settings, but comparisons between different laxatives are not available. Newer prokinetic agents, targeting peristalsis, intestinal secretion and the colonic flora, have been developed for laxative refractory constipation. This review focuses on the evidence for each of these agents, and the relative indications for each of them.

Indexed as

evacuation difficultylaxativeprobioticprokineticserotoninslow transit

Identifiers

PMID21317993
PMCPMC3036964
OpenAlexW2159732609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.