↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Laxatives for the management of constipation in people receiving palliative care

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
37 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
526 Mendeley
Title
Laxatives for the management of constipation in people receiving palliative care
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003448.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bridget Candy, Louise Jones, Philip J Larkin, Victoria Vickerstaff, Adrian Tookman, Patrick Stone

Abstract

This article describes the second update of a Cochrane review on the effectiveness of laxatives for the management of constipation in people receiving palliative care. Previous versions were published in 2006 and 2010 where we also evaluated trials of methylnaltrexone; these trials have been removed as they are included in another review in press. In these earlier versions, we drew no conclusions on individual effectiveness of different laxatives because of the limited number of evaluations. This is despite constipation being common in palliative care, generating considerable suffering due to the unpleasant physical symptoms and the availability of a wide range of laxatives with known differences in effect in other populations. To determine the effectiveness and differential efficacy of laxatives used to manage constipation in people receiving palliative care. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science (SCI & CPCI-S) for trials to September 2014. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating laxatives for constipation in people receiving palliative care. Two authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. The appropriateness of combining data from the studies depended upon clinical and outcome measure homogeneity. We identified five studies involving the laxatives lactulose, senna, co-danthramer, misrakasneham, docusate and magnesium hydroxide with liquid paraffin. Overall, the study findings were at an unclear risk of bias. As all five studies compared different laxatives or combinations of laxatives, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. There was no evidence on whether individual laxatives were more effective than others or caused fewer adverse effects. This second update found that laxatives were of similar effectiveness but the evidence remains limited due to insufficient data from a few small RCTs. None of the studies evaluated polyethylene glycol or any intervention given rectally. There is a need for more trials to evaluate the effectiveness of laxatives in palliative care populations. Extrapolating findings on the effectiveness of laxatives evaluated in other populations should proceed with caution. This is because of the differences inherent in people receiving palliative care that may impact, in a likely negative way, on the effect of a laxative.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 526 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 520 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 103 20%
Student > Master 50 10%
Student > Postgraduate 33 6%
Researcher 32 6%
Other 31 6%
Other 76 14%
Unknown 201 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 151 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 67 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 16 3%
Psychology 13 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 2%
Other 59 11%
Unknown 208 40%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 02 November 2021.
All research outputs
#975,592
of 22,388,998 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,181
of 12,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,169
of 247,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#54
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,388,998 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 12,240 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 247,327 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.