Fructooligosaccharides for Relieving Functional Constipation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fructooligosaccharides (FOS) are prebiotics with great potential to improve constipation. This study set out to investigate the usefulness of consuming FOS as a dietary supplement on bowel movement frequency, stool consistency, abundance of Bifidobacteria, gastrointestinal transit time, and gastrointestinal symptoms through a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases up to 2 March 2024. Randomized controlled trials reporting the use of FOS as a supplement by participants were included. Bias risk was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool. Results were synthesized using a random-effects model or fixed-effects model, combining outcomes using odds ratios (OR), weighted mean differences (MD), or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The meta-analysis encompassed 17 randomized controlled trials, involving a total of 713 study participants. Overall, the intake of FOS significantly increased bowel movement frequency (95% CI: 0.80, 1.50, p < 0.00001) and positively affected stool consistency, softening the stool (SMD: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.12, 0.60, p = 0.76). It also reduced the effort and pain during defecation (SMD: −0.60, 95% CI: −0.85, −0.34, p = 0.12). At the same time, mild bloating was noted as an adverse event associated with FOS ingestion (OR: 10.36, 95% CI: 3.32, 33.23, p = 0.24). No reports of serious adverse events were documented. Overall, FOS may enhance bowel movement frequency, stool consistency, and overall constipation symptoms, suggesting cautious optimism regarding their use as a dietary treatment alternative. Nevertheless, further robust and definitive randomized controlled trials are required to more accurately determine the most effective dosage and duration of use. Additional research and evidence are necessary before the efficacy of FOS as a therapeutic method for treating functional constipation can be firmly established.
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 | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".