Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 316

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lactulose versus Polyethylene Glycol for Chronic Constipation

Open access
Lee-Robichaud, Heather, Thomas, Kathryn, Morgan, Jenna, Nelson, Richard L·2010·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Constipation is a common clinical problem. Lactulose and Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) are both commonly used osmotic laxatives that have been shown to be effective and safe treatments for chronic constipation. However, there is no definitive data as to which provides the best treatment. OBJECTIVES: To identify and review all relevant data in order to determine whether Lactulose or Polyethylene Glycol is more effective at treating chronic constipation and faecal impaction. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of lactulose and polyethylene glycol in the management of faecal impaction and chronic constipation. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials which compared lactulose with polyethylene glycol in the management of chronic constipation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data on study methods, participants, interventions used and outcomes measured was extracted from each study. Data was entered into the Cochrane Review Manager software (RevMan 5.0) and analysed using Cochrane MetaView. MAIN RESULTS: In the present meta-analysis, we considered for the first time all ten randomised controlled trials so far performed. The findings of our work indicate that Polyethylene glycol is better than lactulose in outcomes of stool frequency per week, form of stool, relief of abdominal pain and the need for additional products. On subgroup analysis, this is seen in both adults and children, except for relief of abdominal pain. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Polyethylene Glycol should be used in preference to Lactulose in the treatment of Chronic Constipation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd007570.pub2

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 316

Metadata

Authors
Lee-Robichaud, H., Thomas, K., Morgan, J., & Nelson, R. L.
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-07-07
Volume
2011
Issue
1
Pages
CD007570-CD007570
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W1959276090
Cited by
316
References
3
FWCI
19.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Lactulose versus Polyethylene Glycol for Chronic Constipation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/14651858.cd007570.pub2
The paper
Lee-Robichaud, H., Thomas, K., Morgan, J., & Nelson, R. L. (2010). Lactulose versus Polyethylene Glycol for Chronic Constipation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd007570.pub2

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.