Observational studyClinical and translational gastroenterology2020
Difference in Defecation Desire Between Patients With and Without Chronic Constipation: A Large-Scale Internet Survey.
Observational study in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
A Multicenter, Single-group, Open-label, Before-and-after Study Confirming Recovery of Defecation Desire by Administration of Elobixibat in Patients With Chronic Constipation
A Multicenter, Single-group, Open-label, Before-and-after Study Confirming Recovery of Defecation Desire by Administration of Elobixibat in Patients With Chronic Constipation
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- Elobixibat improves rectal sensation in patients with chronic constipation aged ≥60 years: a randomised placebo-controlled study.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2023Trial
- Impact of chronic constipation symptoms on work productivity and daily activity: A large-scale internet survey.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Article
- Efficacy and safety of elobixibat in combination with or switched from conventional treatments of chronic constipation: A retrospective observational study.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Ability of Ultrasonography Compared with Computed Tomography for Assessing Rectal Feces.Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2024Article
- Review
- Rationale and design of a multicenter, double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to investigate the effects of naldemedine on opioid-induced constipation for patients with cancer pain: A study protocol.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2022Article
- Rationale and design of a multicenter, single-group, open-label trial aiming at investigating the effectiveness of elobixibat for loss of defecation desire in patients with chronic constipation.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDefecation desire (DD) is an important physiological component of normal defecation. However, knowledge of DD in the general population and in individuals with chronic constipation (CC) is lacking. We aimed to assess the prevalence of DD in the general population and individuals with CC and to understand the impact of treatment on DD among individuals with CC.
methodsWe conducted an online questionnaire survey targeting the Japanese general population in 2019. DD was reported as never, rarely, usually, or always. Individuals who self-reported constipation and met the Rome IV criteria for functional constipation but did not for irritable bowel syndrome were included in the CC group, while the same number of age-/sex-matched controls who met neither functional constipation nor irritable bowel syndrome criteria was included in the non-CC group. Individuals who reported DD as rarely or never were defined as having loss of DD (LODD).
resultsOf the 20,986 participants, 2,587 were included in the CC group (12.3%). LODD was significantly higher in the CC individuals than in the non-CC controls (57.4% vs 8.3%, respectively, P < 0.001, odds ratio 14.84 [95% confidence interval 12.65-17.42]). Satisfaction with treatment for constipation was lower in individuals with persistent LODD (25.9%) compared with those with improved LODD (56.5%) on treatment (P < 0.001, odds ratio 2.48 [1.39-4.43]). DISCUSSION: LODD is common in CC and is associated with decreased satisfaction to treatment. Greater attention should be paid to DD when treating patients with CC.
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.