The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rectal Fecal Impaction Treatment in Childhood Constipation: Enemas Versus High Doses Oral PEG
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that enemas and polyethylene glycol (PEG) would be equally effective in treating rectal fecal impaction (RFI) but enemas would be less well tolerated and colonic transit time (CTT) would improve during disimpaction. METHODS: Children (4–16 years) with functional constipation and RFI participated. One week before disimpaction, a rectal examination was performed, symptoms of constipation were recorded, and the first CTT measurement was started. If RFI was determined, then patients were assigned randomly to receive enemas once daily or PEG (1.5 g/kg per day) for 6 consecutive days. During this period, the second CTT measurement was started and a child's behavior questionnaire was administered. Successful rectal disimpaction, defecation and fecal incontinence frequencies, occurrence of abdominal pain and watery stools, CTTs (before and after disimpaction), and behavior scores were assessed. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were eligible, of whom 90 participated (male, n = 60; mean age: 7.5 ± 2.8 years). Forty-six patients received enemas and 44 PEG, with 5 dropouts in each group. Successful disimpaction was achieved with enemas (80%) and PEG (68%; P = .28). Fecal incontinence and watery stools were reported more frequently with PEG (P < .01), but defecation frequency (P = .64), abdominal pain (P = .33), and behavior scores were comparable between groups. CTT normalized equally (P = .85) in the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Enemas and PEG were equally effective in treating RFI in children. Compared with enemas, PEG caused more fecal incontinence, with comparable behavior scores. The treatments should be considered equally as first-line therapy for RFI.
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
Cites
Simplified assessment of segmental colonic transit
Metcalf, A. M., Phillips, S. F., Zinsmeister, A. R., MacCarty, R. L., Beart, R. W., & Wolff, B. G. (1987) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/0016-5085(87)90837-7 · Cited by 928
Cited by
Gordon, M., Naidoo, K., Akobeng, A. K., & Thomas, A. G. (2013) · Evidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal · doi:10.1002/ebch.1893 · Cited by 61
Metadata
- Authors
- Bekkali, N.-L.-H., van den Berg, M.-M., Dijkgraaf, M. G. W., van Wijk, M. P., Bongers, M. E. J., Liem, O., & Benninga, M. A.
- Venue
- Pediatrics
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- Published
- 2009-12-01
- Volume
- 124
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- e1108-e1115
- ISSN
- 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-4275
- OpenAlex
- W2009245997
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 9.26
- 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: Rectal Fecal Impaction Treatment in Childhood Constipation: Enemas Versus High Doses Oral PEG. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1542/peds.2009-0022
- The paper
- Bekkali, N.-L.-H., van den Berg, M.-M., Dijkgraaf, M. G. W., van Wijk, M. P., Bongers, M. E. J., Liem, O., & Benninga, M. A. (2009). Rectal Fecal Impaction Treatment in Childhood Constipation: Enemas Versus High Doses Oral PEG. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-0022
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.