MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134580910 · doi:10.7573/dic.2020-11-2

Paediatrics: how to manage functional constipation

2021· review· en· W3134580910 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander K. C. Leung, Kam‐Lun Ellis Hon

Bibliographic record

VenueDrugs in Context · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal motility and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFunctional constipationRectal examinationConstipationPhysical examinationIntensive care medicinePopulationEnemaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Despite being a common problem in childhood, functional constipation is often difficult to manage. This article provides a narrative updated review on the evaluation, diagnosis and management of childhood functional constipation. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed with Clinical Queries using the key term 'functional constipation'. The search strategy included clinical trials, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, observational studies and reviews. The search was restricted to the English literature and to the paediatric population. The information retrieved from the above search was used in the compilation of the present article. RESULTS: A detailed history and thorough physical examination are important in the evaluation of a child with constipation to establish the diagnosis of functional constipation as per the Rome IV criteria and to catch 'red flags' suggestive of organic causes of constipation. These 'red flags' include delayed passage of meconium, ribbon stool, rectal bleeding/blood in the stool unless attributable to an anal fissure, failure to thrive, severe abdominal distension, absent anal wink/cremasteric reflex, tight and empty rectum on digital examination and explosive expulsion of liquid stool and gas on withdrawal of the finger, hair tuft/dimple/lipoma/haemangioma in the lumbosacral area, and an anteriorly displaced anus. For functional constipation, pharmacological therapy consists of faecal disimpaction and maintenance therapy. This can be effectively accomplished with oral medications, rectal medications or a combination of both. The most commonly used and most effective laxative is polyethylene glycol. Non-pharmacological management consists of education, behavioural modification and dietary interventions. The combination of pharmacological therapy and non-pharmacological management increases the chance of success. CONCLUSION: Polyethylene glycol is the medication of first choice for both disimpaction and maintenance therapy. If polyethylene glycol is not available or is poorly tolerated, lactulose is the preferred alternative. Other laxatives may be considered as second-line therapy if treatment with osmotic laxatives fails or is insufficient. Maintenance treatment should be continued for at least 2 months. Early treatment will result in a faster and shorter treatment course.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.004

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations37
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrugs in ContextSame topicGastrointestinal motility and disordersFrench-language works237,207