ArticleThe Journal of emergency medicine2019
A Comparison of the Efficacy of Enema Solutions in Pediatric Emergency Department Patients.
Article in The Journal of emergency medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacological management of childhood constipation: Bridging today's gaps with tomorrow's therapies.World journal of clinical pediatrics · 2026Review
- Tethered cord syndrome (TCS) and constipation in children: a multifaceted approach (literature review).Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Efficacy of docusate in the treatment of constipation in pediatric patients.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- The Risks of Phosphate Enemas in Toddlers: A Life-Threatening Unawareness.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- An Update of Pharmacological Management in Children with Functional Constipation.Paediatric drugs · 2023Review
- What is the Evidence for Over the Counter Laxatives to Treat Childhood Constipation?Current gastroenterology reports · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChildren presenting to pediatric emergency departments (EDs) are frequently given enemas for relief of constipation symptoms; there is very little literature guiding solution selection.
objectiveOur aim was to assess and compare the efficacy of the various enema solutions used in a pediatric ED, including the "pink lady," a previously unreported compounded combination of docusate, magnesium citrate, mineral oil, and sodium phosphate.
methodsWe identified all children who received any enema over a 5-year period in an urban, quaternary care pediatric ED for inclusion in the study via electronic record review. Physician investigators retrospectively reviewed routine visit documentation to confirm the type and dosage of enema and assess comorbidities, indications, efficacy, and side effects. Subjective descriptions of output were classified as none, small, medium, or large by reviewer consensus.
resultsThere were 768 records included. Median age was 6.2 years (interquartile range 3.3-10.3 years). Solutions used were sodium phosphate (n = 396), pink lady (n = 198), soap suds (n = 160), and other (n = 14). There was no significant difference in output by solution type (p = 0.88). Volume delivered was highest for pink lady, with no significant association between volume delivered and output (p = 0.48). Four percent of patients had side effects. Soap suds had a significantly higher rate of side effects (10.6%; p = 0.0003), primarily abdominal pain.
conclusionsThere was no significant difference in reported stool output produced by sodium phosphate, soap suds, and pink lady enemas in children treated in an ED. Further study via randomized controlled trials would be beneficial in guiding selection of enema solution.
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.