Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 494

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Efficacy and Safety of Traditional Medical Therapies for Chronic Constipation: Systematic Review

Ramkumar, Davendra, Rao, Satish S.C.·2005·The American Journal of Gastroenterology
DOI 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.40925.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Constipation is common, and its treatment is unsatisfactory. Although many agents have been tried, there are limited data to support their use. Our aim was to undertake a systematic review of the efficacy and safety of traditional medical therapies for chronic constipation and to make evidence-based recommendations. METHODS: We searched the English literature for drug trials evaluating treatment of constipation by using MEDLINE and PUBMED databases from 1966 to 2003. Only studies that were randomized, conducted on adult subjects, and published as full manuscripts were included. Studies were assigned a quality score based on published methodology. Standard forms were used to abstract data regarding study design, duration, outcome measures, and adverse events. By using the cumulative evidence of published data for each agent, recommendations were made regarding their use following the United States Preventive Services Task Force guidelines. RESULTS: Good evidence (Grade A) was found to support the use of polyethylene glycol (PEG) and tegaserod. Moderate evidence (Grade B) was found to support the use of psyllium, and lactulose. There was a paucity of quality data regarding many commonly used agents including milk of magnesia, senna, bisacodyl, and stool softeners. CONCLUSIONS: There is good evidence to support the use of PEG, tegaserod, lactulose, and psyllium. Surprisingly, there is a paucity of trials for many commonly used agents. These aspects should be considered when designing trials comparing new agents with traditional therapies because their use may not be well validated.

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 · 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.40925.x

Cites

8 of 8 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 8 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Ramkumar, D., & Rao, S. S. C.
Venue
The American Journal of Gastroenterology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2005-04
Volume
100
Issue
4
Pages
936-971
ISSN
  • 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
  • 1572-0241
DOI
10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.40925.x
OpenAlex
W2115636891
Cited by
494
References
8
FWCI
2.16
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

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.