ReviewJournal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition2020
Differences in efficacy and safety of lubiprostone used for idiopathic vs opioid-induced constipation: meta-analysis of East Asian and Western populations.
Review in Journal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition, 2020. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of post-market adverse events of lubiprostone: a real-world adverse event analysis from the FAERS database.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Factors associated with long-term efficacy of lubiprostone for chronic constipation.Journal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several secretagogues, such as lubiprostone, have been developed for the treatment of constipation in the last 10 years. It is unclear whether the efficacy of lubiprostone for spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) and the adverse events are similar between idiopathic and opioid-induced constipation and between East-Asian and Western populations. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare efficacy and safety of lubiprostone in two populations with idiopathic vs opioid-induced constipation. The PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy and safety that were published in English up to March 2019. Compared with the placebo groups in idiopathic and opioid-induced constipation, the lubiprostone groups significantly improved in 24-h SBM frequency [relative risk: 1.28, 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.49, and 1.23, 1.14-1.32] and weekly frequency >3 SBM/week (1.68, 1.41-2.01, and 1.43, 1.01-2.04), respectively. Although the incidence of adverse events was similar between idiopathic and opioid-induced constipation, the incidence of nausea in Western populations with idiopathic constipation was significantly higher (29.2%) than that in East-Asian populations (10.0%,
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.