Polyethylene Glycol Dosing for Constipation in Children Younger Than 24 Months
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate safety and effectiveness of Polyethylene glycol (PEG) for chronic constipation in children aged younger than 24 months. Identify the optimum dose of PEG to manage chronic constipation in children aged younger than 24 months. METHODS: In this systematic review, Embase, Medline Ovid, Pubmed, and the Cochrane Library were searched between January 1, 2000 and February 1, 2019. Studies investigating functional constipation, in which patients younger than 24 months of age were treated with PEG, were considered as potentially eligible for review. Two authors screened the studies against inclusion/exclusion criteria. Study quality was assessed with the PEDro quality assessment, Cochrane risk of bias tool, and/or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Five studies (2 randomized controlled trials, 3 retrospective chart reviews) satisfied selection criteria (n = 459). All studies employed different dosage categories: mean effective maintenance dose, mean initial dose, mean short-term and long-term dose, and mean daily dose. Dosage regimens were variable, with 0.45 to 1.1 g · kg · day for PEG3350 and 0.48 to 0.65 g · kg · day for PEG4000. Adverse effects were transient across all studies for all types of PEG; these included diarrhea and abdominal pain. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provided evidence for a lack of reported side effects from PEG for children aged younger than 24 months. Evidence to establish appropriate dosage regimens does not exist.An infographic accompanying this article can be found at http://links.lww.com/MPG/B839.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".