4.2 Review

Efficacy and safety of laxatives for chronic constipation in long-term care settings: A systematic review

期刊

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1111/jcpt.12721

关键词

chronic constipation; laxatives; laxatives; long-term care settings; nursing homes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

What is known and objectiveConstipation 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. MethodsA 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 discussionSeven 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 conclusionConsidering 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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据