The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of the safety and efficacy of a new polyethylene glycol laxative
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to determine the efficacy and safety of a new laxative, Braintree polyethylene glycol (PEG) laxative (Miralax, Braintree Laboratories, Braintree, MA). METHODS: This investigation was designed as a placebo-controlled, blinded, randomized, multicenter parallel trial. Study subjects were constipated but otherwise healthy outpatients who had < or =2 stools during a 7-day qualification period. Braintree PEG laxative 17 g or dextrose placebo p.o. in 8 oz of water for a 14-day treatment period. A diary recorded each bowel movement and subjective symptoms of stool consistency, ease of passage, cramps, and flatus. CBC, blood chemistries and urinalysis were performed before and after the treatment period. RESULTS: There were 151 randomized subjects, 131 female and 20 male. An increase in bowel movement frequency was observed with the PEG laxative as compared to placebo (p<0.001), with the greatest difference in efficacy in wk 2 of treatment (p<0.001). By wk 2 of treatment, on average, placebo subjects had 2.7 bowel movements/wk and PEG-treated study subjects had 4.5 movements/wk (p<0.01), or more than one bowel movement every 2 days. Investigator (p<0.005) and patient (p<0.001) subjective assessment of perception of treatment effectiveness, and patient evaluations of stool consistency and passage showed significant improvement in the active treatment group (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in laboratory changes or adverse experiences recorded between groups. CONCLUSION: Braintree PEG laxative is safe and effective in the short term for the treatment of 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
Cited by
Efficacy and Safety of Traditional Medical Therapies for Chronic Constipation: Systematic Review
Ramkumar, D., & Rao, S. S. C. (2005) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.40925.x · Cited by 494
Ford, A. C., & Suares, N. C. (2011) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2010.227132 · Cited by 378
Systematic Review on the Management of Chronic Constipation in North America
Brandt, L. J., Prather, C. M., Quigley, E. M. M., Schiller, L. R., Schoenfeld, P., & Talley, N. J. (2005) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.50613_2.x · Cited by 342
Chronic Constipation: An Evidence-Based Review
Leung, L., Riutta, T., Kotecha, J., & Rosser, W. (2011) · The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine · doi:10.3122/jabfm.2011.04.100272 · Cited by 300
Chronic Constipation in the Elderly
Bouras, E. P., & Tangalos, E. G. (2009) · Gastroenterology Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.gtc.2009.06.001 · Cited by 275
Metadata
- Authors
- DiPalma, J.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Gastroenterology
- Published
- 2000-02
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 446-450
- ISSN
- 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1971440285
- Cited by
- 211
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: A randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of the safety and efficacy of a new polyethylene glycol laxative. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0002-9270(99)00824-2
- The paper
- DiPalma, J. (2000). A randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter study of the safety and efficacy of a new polyethylene glycol laxative. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9270(99)00824-2
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.