Cited by 36Gastrointestinal motility and disordersPelvic floor disorders treatmentsCongenital gastrointestinal and neural anomalies

Long‐term Use of Bisacodyl in Pediatric Functional Constipation Refractory to Conventional Therapy

Bonilla, Silvana, Nurko, Samuel, Rodriguez, Leonel·2020·Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition

Abstract

Objectives: Standard therapy for pediatric constipation includes osmotic laxatives with stimulant laxatives use only as rescue therapy. Limited information is available on regular and long‐term use of bisacodyl in pediatric population despite its common use in adult and pediatric constipation. Methods: Retrospective review of patients with functional constipation refractory to conventional therapy (regular use of osmotic laxatives and intermittent use of stimulant laxatives only as a rescue therapy) referred to tertiary care children's hospital (January 2007–December 2014). Patients had a bowel movement (BM) frequency of ≤2 per week and were treated with bisacodyl regularly for longer than 4 weeks. Demographic variables, bisacodyl dose and treatment duration, number of BM/week before and after treatment, side effects, and length of follow‐up were recorded. Response to therapy was successful when frequency of BM increased from baseline to ≥3 BM/wk. Results: A total of 164 patients were included, 52% girls, median age 9.45 years (0.9–21 years). Bisacodyl median dose was 5 mg/day, median duration of treatment was 14 months (1–77 months) with 90% of patients taking the medication for <36 months. Median number of BM/wk doubled after initiation of bisacodyl from 2 to 4 bm/w (P < 0.001). Approximately 57% of patients had successful response. At long‐term follow‐up 55% of patients were successfully weaned off bisacodyl (median time of 18 months). Side effects reported in 9% of patients. Conclusions: Bisacodyl is effective and well tolerated in the long‐term treatment of pediatric functional constipation refractory to conventional therapy. Most of patients with a favorable response were successfully weaned off the medication.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mpg.0000000000002795

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bonilla, S., Nurko, S., & Rodriguez, L.
Affiliations
Boston Children's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Rodriguez, Leonel
Venue
Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-05-26
Volume
71
Issue
3
Pages
288-291
ISSN
  • 0277-2116 (ISSN-L)
  • 1536-4801
OpenAlex
W3031091383
Cited by
36
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6
FWCI
4.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Congenital gastrointestinal and neural anomalies
Keywords
bisacodyl, pediatric functional constipation, stimulant laxatives, osmotic laxatives, refractory constipation, stool frequency, adverse drug reactions
MeSH terms
Adult, Bisacodyl, Child, Constipation, Female, Gastrointestinal Agents, Humans, Male, Retrospective Studies, Laxatives

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