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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
Longstreth, G. F., Thompson, W. G., Chey, W. D., Houghton, L. A., Mearin, F., & Spiller, R. C. (2006) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2005.11.061 · Cited by 4,856
Functional bowel disorders and functional abdominal pain
Thompson, W. G., Longstreth, G. F., Drossman, D. A., Heaton, K. W., Irvine, E. J., & Müller-Lissner, S. A. (1999) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.45.2008.ii43 · Cited by 2,440
Cited by
Seppi, K., Weintraub, D., Coelho, M., Perez‐Lloret, S., Fox, S. H., Katzenschlager, R., Hametner, E., Poewe, W., Rascol, O., Goetz, C. G., et al. (2011) · Movement Disorders · doi:10.1002/mds.23884 · Cited by 1,141
Mechanisms, evaluation, and management of chronic constipation
Bharucha, A. E., & Lacy, B. E. (2020) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2019.12.034 · Cited by 655
Diagnosis and management of chronic constipation in adults
Rao, S. S. C., Rattanakovit, K., & Patcharatrakul, T. (2016) · Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2016.53 · Cited by 337
Serra, J., Pohl, D., Azpiroz, F., Chiarioni, G., Ducrotté, P., Gourcerol, G., Hungin, A. P. S., Layer, P., Mendive, J., Pfeifer, J., et al. (2020) · Neurogastroenterology & Motility · doi:10.1111/nmo.13762 · Cited by 244
Bharucha, A. E., & Wald, A. (2019) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings · doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.01.031 · Cited by 238
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.