Efficacy and safety of laxatives for chronic constipation in long‐term care settings: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Constipation is a common disorder among long-term care (LTC) patients due to several factors. However, there are no systematic reviews investigating the use of laxatives for chronic constipation in LTC settings. This study aims to explore the safety and efficacy of laxatives in LTC patients. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) describing the efficacy and safety of laxatives for chronic constipation in LTC patients was conducted using the following databases and search engines: MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ScienceDirect, ProQuest and Google Scholar. Two of the investigators independently performed the searches, and the data were extracted using a standardized data abstraction tool. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Seven RCTs involving 444 patients were included in the review. These studies included senna (with or without fibre, ie Plantago ovata), lactulose, sodium picosulphate, docusate sodium, docusate calcium, isotonic and hypotonic polyethylene glycol and Chinese herbal medicine. Senna and lactulose were the most studied laxatives in LTC patients, and senna was found to be superior to or as effective as other laxatives. Generally, the frequency and severity of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were similar between the arms of the studies, and no serious ADRs were reported. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Considering the short duration of the trials, the lack of trials including newer laxatives and the low quality of some of the included trials, the long-term efficacy and safety of these laxatives are not conclusive. There is a need to conduct more robust RCTs that include newer agents to evaluate long-term outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".