| Title |
Interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2001
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd001142 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Jewell, Gavin Young |
| Abstract |
Constipation is a common problem in late pregnancy. Circulating progesterone may be the cause of slower gastrointestinal movement in mid and late pregnancy. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of different methods for treating constipation in pregnancy. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and MEDLINE. Date of last search: January 2001. Randomised trials of any treatment for constipation in pregnancy. Trial quality assessments and data extraction were done independently by two reviewers. Two suitable trials were identified. Fibre supplements increased the frequency of defecation (odds ratio 0.18, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.67), and lead to softer stools. Stimulant laxatives are more effective than bulk-forming laxatives (odds ratio 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.61), but may cause more side effects. Dietary supplements of fibre in the form of bran or wheat fibre are likely to help women experiencing constipation in pregnancy. If the problem fails to resolve, stimulant laxatives are likely to prove more effective. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 81 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
| Researcher | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 15 | 18% |
| Unknown | 27 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 31 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 March 2020.
All research outputs
#1,094,186
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,466
of 12,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#732
of 40,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,333 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 40,335 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.