ArticlePatient preference and adherence2011
Differences in taste between three polyethylene glycol preparations: a randomized double-blind study.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chronic constipation diagnosis and treatment evaluation: the "CHRO.CO.DI.T.E." study.BMC gastroenterology · 2017Article
- Comparison of Polyethylene Glycol-Electrolyte Solution vs Polyethylene Glycol-3350 for the Treatment of Fecal Impaction in Pediatric Patients.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAGArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimPatients suffering from chronic constipation require long-term, regular therapy with laxatives. Literature regarding patient preference and acceptance in polyethylene glycol preparations is scarce. Therefore, this research aimed to identify preference between the three polyethylene glycol 3350, namely Molaxole(®), Movicol(®), and Laxtra Orange(®). Furthermore, taste is one of the most important factors leading to patients' adherence, particularly when the treatment lasts for a long time.
methodsIn this randomized, cross-over double-blind study, 100 volunteers were recruited by advertisement. The volunteers were invited to taste the preparations and grade the taste using a five-point hedonic scale (extremely poor taste [1] to extremely good taste [5]). The volunteers were then asked to choose the most palatable preparation.
resultsOne hundred volunteers with a mean age of 35 years (range 20-61) were randomized (76 females). Molaxole(®), Movicol(®), and Laxtra Orange(®) had a mean hedonic score of 2.76 (SD: 0.82), 2.81 (SD: 0.76) and 3.12 (SD: 0.82) respectively. The hedonic taste score for Laxtra Orange(®) was significantly better than Molaxole(®) (P = 0.001) and Movicol(®) (P = 0.001). No difference was found between Molaxole(®) and Movicol(®) (P = 0.61). Molaxole(®) was the most preferred preparation for 19 volunteers (19%), Movicol(®) for 24 volunteers (25%) and Laxtra Orange(®) for 55 volunteers (56%). Two volunteers had no preference. The order in which volunteers tested the preparations had no influence on the taste results. No significant differences in age or gender were observed.
conclusionLaxtra Orange(®) was most palatable preparation. This may have implications for adherence in patients with chronic constipation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.