Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 279

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of a low dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution with lactulose for treatment of chronic constipation

Open access
Attar, A, Lémann, M, Ferguson, A, Halphen, M, Boutron, M-C, Flourié, B, Alix, E, Salmeron, M, Guillemot, F, Chaussade, S, Ménard, A-M, Moreau, J, Naudin, G, Barthet, M·1999·Gut

Abstract

Background: Polyethylene glycol (PEG) 3350 is a non-absorbable, non-metabolised osmotic agent used in lavage solutions for gut cleansing. Aims: To compare the efficacy of PEG and lactulose in chronic constipation. Methods: A total of 115 patients with chronic constipation entered a multicentre, randomised, comparative trial. They initially received two sachets containing either PEG (13 g/sachet) or lactulose (10 g/sachet) and were given an option to change the dose to one or three sachets/day, depending on response. Results: Ninety nine patients completed the trial. After four weeks, patients in the PEG group (n=50) had a higher number of stools and a lower median daily score for straining at stool than patients in the lactulose group (n=49). Overall improvement was greater in the PEG group. Clinical tolerance was similar in the two groups, but flatus was less frequently reported in the PEG group. The mean number of liquid stools was higher in the PEG group but the difference was significant only for the first two weeks. There were no serious adverse events and no significant change in laboratory tests in either group. At the end of the study, the number of sachets used by the patients was 1.6 (0.7)/day in the PEG group and 2.1 (0.7)/day in the lactulose group. Sixty one patients completed a further two months open study of one to three sachets PEG daily; there was no loss of efficacy and no serious toxicity. Conclusion: Low dose PEG 3350 was more effective than lactulose and better tolerated.

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 · 10.1136/gut.44.2.226

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 279

Metadata

Authors
Attar, A., Lémann, M., Ferguson, A., Halphen, M., Boutron, M.-C., Flourié, B., Alix, E., Salmeron, M., Guillemot, F., Chaussade, S., Ménard, A.-M., Moreau, J., Naudin, G., & Barthet, M.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1999-02-01
Volume
44
Issue
2
Pages
226-230
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2165844124
Cited by
279
References
2
FWCI
7.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Comparison of a low dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution with lactulose for treatment of chronic constipation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.44.2.226
The paper
Attar, A., Lémann, M., Ferguson, A., Halphen, M., Boutron, M.-C., Flourié, B., Alix, E., Salmeron, M., Guillemot, F., Chaussade, S., Ménard, A.-M., Moreau, J., Naudin, G., & Barthet, M. (1999). Comparison of a low dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution with lactulose for treatment of chronic constipation. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.44.2.226

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.