Cited by 33Gastrointestinal motility and disordersComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesPhytochemistry Medicinal Plant Applications

Efficacy of an Herbal Dietary Supplement (Smooth Move) in the Management of Constipation in Nursing Home Residents: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

BUB, S, BRINCKMANN, J, CICCONETTI, G, VALENTINE, B·2006·Journal of the American Medical Directors Association

Abstract

Objective To investigate the efficacy and cost effectiveness of an herbal tea, Smooth Move, in nursing home residents with chronic constipation. Design Double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-armed, parallel-group clinical trial. Setting A 483-bed nursing home in Allentown, Pennsylvania, operated by Lehigh County Government. Participants A total of 86 nursing home residents with chronic constipation. Interventions Participants (n = 86) were randomly assigned to receive Smooth Move (n = 42) or a placebo (n = 44), once daily, in addition to standard treatment for chronic constipation. The study period was 28 days. Measurements The primary efficacy parameter was the difference in total number of bowel movements. Secondary parameters included the difference in average number of standard treatment doses dispensed, and the difference in total medication costs. Results Compared to placebo, in the intention to treat (ITT analysis) there was a statistically significant increase in the number of bowel movements in the Smooth Move group. The Smooth Move group (n = 42) compared with the placebo group (n = 44) experienced an average of 4.14 more bowel movements during the 28-day study period versus the 28-day pre-study period (P = .017). Conclusion Smooth Move herbal tea, when added to the standard treatment regimen for nursing home residents with chronic constipation, increased the average number of bowel movements compared to the addition of a placebo tea.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jamda.2006.06.001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
BUB, S., BRINCKMANN, J., CICCONETTI, G., & VALENTINE, B.
Affiliations
  • Cajal Therapeutics (United States) (US)
  • Muhlenberg College (US)
Corresponding author
BUB, S
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Directors Association
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-11
Volume
7
Issue
9
Pages
556-561
ISSN
1525-8610 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2147148347
Cited by
33
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Directors Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Phytochemistry Medicinal Plant Applications
Keywords
chronic constipation, nursing home residents, herbal supplements, herbal tea, defecation, drug costs, cost-effectiveness, long-term care
MeSH terms
Beverages, Chronic Disease, Constipation, Defecation, Double-Blind Method, Female, Fruit, Gum Arabic, Humans, Male, Phytotherapy, Nursing Homes, Pennsylvania, Risk Factors, Treatment Outcome, Dietary Supplements, Glycyrrhizic Acid, Zingiber officinale, Plant Bark, Coriandrum, Foeniculum, Citrus sinensis, Cinnamomum aromaticum

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