Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparison of efficacy of pharmacological treatments for chronic idiopathic constipation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparison of efficacy of pharmacological treatments for chronic idiopathic constipation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparison of efficacy of pharmacological treatments for chronic idiopathic constipation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparison of efficacy of pharmacological treatments for chronic idiopathic constipation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
2017
Overview
ObjectiveTo compare efficacy of pharmacotherapies for chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) based on comparisons to placebo using Bayesian network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWe conducted searches (inception to May 2015) of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Central, as well as original data from authors or drug companies for the medications used for CIC.Study selectionPhase IIB and phase III randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCT) of ≥4 weeks' treatment for CIC in adults with Rome II or III criteria for functional constipation; trials included at least one of four end points.Data extraction and synthesisTwo investigators independently evaluated all full-text articles that met inclusion criteria and extracted data for primary and secondary end points, risk of bias and quality of evidence.OutcomesPrimary end points were ≥3 complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBM)/week and increase over baseline by ≥1 CSBM/week. Secondary end points were change from baseline (Δb) in the number of SBM/week and Δb CSBM/week.ResultsTwenty-one RCTs (9189 patients) met inclusion and end point criteria: 9 prucalopride, 3 lubiprostone, 3 linaclotide, 2 tegaserod, 1 each velusetrag, elobixibat, bisacodyl and sodium picosulphate (NaP). All prespecified end points were unavailable in four polyethylene glycol studies. Bisacodyl, NaP, prucalopride and velusetrag were superior to placebo for the ≥3 CSBM/week end point. No drug was superior at improving the primary end points on network meta-analysis. Bisacodyl appeared superior to the other drugs for the secondary end point, Δb in number of SBM/week.ConclusionsCurrent drugs for CIC show similar efficacy. Bisacodyl may be superior to prescription medications for Δb in the number of SBM/week in CIC.
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group LTD
Subject
Azabicyclo Compounds - administration & dosage
/ Azabicyclo Compounds - adverse effects
/ Benzofurans - administration & dosage
/ Benzofurans - adverse effects
/ Bisacodyl - administration & dosage
/ Citrates - administration & dosage
/ Constipation - physiopathology
/ Drugs
/ Gastrointestinal Agents - administration & dosage
/ Gastrointestinal Agents - adverse effects
/ Humans
/ Organometallic Compounds - administration & dosage
/ Organometallic Compounds - adverse effects
/ Picolines - administration & dosage
/ Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
/ Sodium
