SynthesisBMJ open2021
Different doses of prucalopride in treating chronic idiopathic constipation: a meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Seoul Consensus on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Functional Constipation].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2025Guideline
- Comparative profiles of lubiprostone, linaclotide, and elobixibat for chronic constipation: a systematic literature review with meta-analysis and number needed to treat/harm.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of electroacupuncture versus prucalopride for ultra-severe chronic constipation: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- 2022 Seoul Consensus on Clinical Practice Guidelines for Functional Constipation.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2023Review
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 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to explore the incremental benefit of different doses of prucalopride in treating chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC).
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP medicine information and Wanfang databases were comprehensively searched up to March 2020. Prospective trials with different doses of prucalopride versus placebo were selected. The frequency of spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs) per week and the treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), such as headache, arrhythmia, diarrhoea, dizziness, nausea and vomiting, were first synthesised in a meta-analysis. The probability of optimal dose of prucalopride was then ranked by random-effects within Bayesian analysis.
results14 high-quality randomised controlled trials with 4328 patients were ultimately included. SBMs per week increased significantly after using 1 mg (OR: 2.40, 95% CI 1.32 to 4.37), 2 mg (OR: 2.55, 95% CI 1.93 to 3.36) and 4 mg (OR: 2.51, 95% CI 1.92 to 3.28) prucalopride. Bayesian analysis demonstrated 1 mg dose obtained the maximum SBMs per week (OR: 3.31, 95% credible interval 1.72 to 6.16, probability rank=0.70) indirectly compared with 2 mg and 4 mg doses. TEAEs were higher significantly in 2 mg (risk ratio (RR): 1.20, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.33) and 4 mg (RR: 1.14, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.22) prucalopride. The 1 mg dose did not reach statistical significance (RR: 1.17, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.44).
conclusionsThe study concludes that 1 mg dose at commencement could be safer in treating CIC and that 2 mg prucalopride could be more efficacious in terms of SBMs per week outcome receiving. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019136679.
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.