MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028344211 · doi:10.1089/jpm.2007.0178

A Comparison of Sennosides-Based Bowel Protocols with and without Docusate in Hospitalized Patients with Cancer

2008· article· en· W2028344211 on OpenAlexafffund
Philippa Hawley, Jai Jun Byeon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
FundersBC Cancer AgencyPurdue Pharma
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerInternal medicineOncologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Constipation is a common and distressing condition in patients with cancer, especially those taking opioid analgesics. Many institutions prevent and treat constipation with titrated laxatives, which is known as a bowel protocol. An effective and well-tolerated bowel protocol is a very important component of cancer care, and there is little evidence on which to base selection of the most appropriate agents. This study compares a protocol of the stimulant laxative sennosides alone with a protocol of sennosides plus the stool softener docusate, in hospitalized patients at an oncology center. The docusate-containing protocol had an initial docusate-only step for patients not taking opioids, and four to six 100-mg capsules of docusate sodium in addition to the sennosides for the rest of the protocol. METHODS: Thirty patients received the sennosides-only (S) protocol and 30 the sennosides plus docusate (DS) protocol. The efficacy and adverse effects of the protocols were monitored for 5-12 days. The two protocols were used sequentially, creating two cohorts, one on each protocol. Eighty percent of patients were taking oral opioids and 72% were admitted for symptom control/supportive care. RESULTS: Over a total of 488 days of observation it was found that the S protocol produced more bowel movements than the DS protocol, and in the symptom control/supportive care patients this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). In the S group admitted for symptom control/supportive care 62.5% had a bowel movement more than 50% of days, as compared with 32% in those receiving the DS protocol. Fifty-seven percent of the DS group required additional interventions (lactulose, suppositories or enemas) compared to 40% in the S group. Cramps were reported equally by 3 (10%) patients in each group. Eight patients (27%) experienced diarrhea in the S group compared to 4 (13%) in the DS group. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of the initial docusate-only step and adding docusate 400-600 mg/d to the sennosides did not reduce bowel cramps, and was less effective in inducing laxation than the sennosides-only protocol. Further research into the appropriate use of docusate and into the details of bowel protocol design are required.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative MedicineSame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207