Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Oral Docusate in the Management of Constipation in Hospice Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The stool softener docusate is widely used in the management of constipation in hospice patients. There is little experimental evidence to support this practice, and no randomized trials have been conducted in the hospice setting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of docusate in hospice patients. METHODS: This was a 10-day, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of docusate and sennosides vs. placebo and sennosides in hospice patients in Edmonton, Alberta. Patients were included if they were age 18 years or older, able to take oral medications, did not have a gastrointestinal stoma, and had a Palliative Performance Scale score of 20% or more. The primary outcome measures were stool frequency, volume, and consistency. Secondary outcomes were patient perceptions of bowel movements (difficulty and completeness of evacuation) and bowel-related interventions. RESULTS: A total of 74 patients were randomized into the study (35 to the docusate group and 39 to the placebo group). There were neither significant differences between the groups in stool frequency, volume, or consistency, nor in difficulty or completeness of evacuation. On the Bristol Stool Form Scale, more patients in the placebo group had Type 4 (smooth and soft) and Type 5 (soft blobs) stool, whereas in the docusate group, more had Type 3 (sausage like) and Type 6 (mushy) stool (P=0.01). CONCLUSION: There was no significant benefit of docusate plus sennosides compared with placebo plus sennosides in managing constipation in hospice patients. Docusate use should be considered on an individual basis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".