ArticleIrish journal of medical science2015
Pharmacoeconomic study of chronic constipation in a secondary care centre.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic Burden of Patients With Chronic Idiopathic Constipation in the USA Before and After Prucalopride Initiation.Gastro hep advances · 2025Article
- An update on prucalopride in the treatment of chronic constipation.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2017Review
- Review
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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to measure any incremental costs or savings within the health system associated with the introduction of the new technology, prucalopride, for the management of chronic constipation. METHODOLOGY: The study design was based on a budget impact analysis conducted by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE). To validate the findings of the NICE costing template, a case series audit capturing real world data was used to determine the financial impact of adopting prucalopride in 40 women suffering with chronic constipation. This facilitated the application of local unit costs to the resources used and determined whether the use of prucalopride, as an alternative treatment to laxatives, resulted in a reduction in the use of secondary care resources.
resultsPatients were treated with an average of 2.6 laxatives in the baseline (laxatives only) scenario. The total medication costs in the baseline (laxatives only) and the new treatment (prucalopride) scenario amounted to €17,440.84 and €18,417.62, respectively. There was a significant reduction in the number of investigations and procedures in the 12 months after commencing prucalopride, with cost savings of €41,923.28 (€1,048.08 per patient per year) demonstrated. Input cost variables were adjusted as part of sensitivity analysis.
conclusionThis study validated the findings of the NICE costing template and suggests that the use of prucalopride for the treatment of chronic constipation in women refractory to laxatives has the potential to reduce secondary care resource use and hence led to cost savings.
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.