Synbiotic preparation in men suffering from functional constipation: a randomised controlled trial
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluating the effects of a commercially available synbiotic preparation (contains both prebiotic and probiotic elements) on functional constipation in males. METHODS: In a randomised controlled trial, a total of 66 adult men with functional constipation were equally allocated to receive a synbiotic mixture or a placebo. The synbiotic mixture or placebo was given as capsules with the same shape and colour, and patients received the capsules twice a day for 4 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients (31 in the synbiotic group) completed the study. At baseline evaluation, there was no significant difference between the mean stool frequency per week in synbiotic and placebo groups [mean difference of 0.11 times (95% CI: –0.31–0.55), p = 0.58]. However, mean stool frequency increased significantly at weeks 2 [mean difference of 1.32 times (95% CI: 0.21–2.43)] and 4 [mean difference of 1.58 times (95% CI: 0.18–2.99)] in the synbiotic group compared with the placebo group (p = 0.02). A significant difference (p = 0.006) was found at weeks 2 [mean difference of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.20–1.45)] and 4 [mean difference of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.32–1.51)] between the synbiotic and placebo groups regarding the Bristol stool form score. No adverse effect was seen in the synbiotic group. CONCLUSION: The results of this study indicated that this specific commercial product seemed to be effective in increasing stool frequency and improving consistency in this sample of males with functional constipation. However, further studies with longer follow ups, and including females and elderly patients are required to confirm the efficacy of this product for treatment of functional constipation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The systematic review included 17 randomised controlled trials comprising 1256 adult patients with functional constipation.
“17 studies, comprising 1256 participants, were included with perfect agreements between two researchers (kappa statistic=0.797).”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 34 · Cited by 46
- Authors
- Fateh, R., Iravani, S., Frootan, M., Saadat, S., & Rasouli, M.
- Affiliations
- Tehran University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Aja University of Medical Sciences (IR)
- Shahid Beheshti University (IR)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Swiss Medical Weekly
- Publisher
- SMW Supporting Association
- Published
- 2011-07-18
- Volume
- 141
- Issue
- 2930
- Pages
- w13239
- ISSN
- 0036-7672 (ISSN-L)
- 1424-3997
- OpenAlex
- W1972889877
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Swiss Medical Weekly (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Microbial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology
- Keywords
- synbiotics, functional constipation, prebiotics, probiotics, men, stool frequency, gastrointestinal motility
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Appetite, Colonic Diseases, Functional, Constipation, Defecation, Feces, Humans, Iran, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Synbiotics
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