↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011448.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Phassawan Rungsiprakarn, Malinee Laopaiboon, Ussanee S Sangkomkamhang, Pisake Lumbiganon, Jeremy J Pratt

Abstract

Constipation is a common symptom experienced during pregnancy. It has a range of consequences from reduced quality of life and perception of physical health to haemorrhoids. An understanding of the effectiveness and safety of treatments for constipation in pregnancy is important for the clinician managing pregnant women. To assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 April 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We considered all published, unpublished and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and quasi-RCTs, evaluating interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for constipation in pregnancy. Cross-over studies were not eligible for inclusion in this review. Trials published in abstract form only (without full text publication) were not eligible for inclusion.We compared one intervention (pharmacological or non-pharmacological) against another intervention, placebo or no treatment. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. Four studies were included, but only two studies with a total of 180 women contributed data to this review. It was not clear whether they were RCTs or quasi-RCTs because the sequence generation was unclear. We classified the overall risk of bias of three studies as moderate and one study as high risk of bias. No meta-analyses were carried out due to insufficient data.There were no cluster-RCTs identified for inclusion. Comparisons were available for stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxatives, and fibre supplementation versus no intervention. There were no data available for any other comparisons.During the review process we found that studies reported changes in symptoms in different ways. To capture all data available, we added a new primary outcome (improvement in constipation) - this new outcome was not prespecified in our published protocol. Stimulant laxatives versus bulk-forming laxativesNo data were identified for any of this review's prespecified primary outcomes: pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.Compared to bulk-forming laxatives, pregnant women who received stimulant laxatives had significantly more improvement in constipation (risk ratio (RR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 2.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence), but also significantly more abdominal discomfort (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.73; 140 women, one study, low quality of evidence), and borderline difference in diarrhoea (RR 4.50, 95% CI 1.01 to 20.09; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). In addition, there was no significant difference in women's satisfaction (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.46; 140 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence).No usable data were identified for any of this review's secondary outcomes: quality of life; dehydration; electrolyte imbalance; acute allergic reaction; or asthma. Fibre supplementation versus no interventionPregnant women who received fibre supplementation had significantly higher frequency of stools compared to no intervention (mean difference (MD) 2.24 times per week, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.52; 40 women, one study, moderate quality of evidence). Fibre supplementation was associated with improved stool consistency as defined by trialists (hard stool decreased by 11% to 14%, normal stool increased by 5% to 10%, and loose stool increased by 0% to 6%).No usable data were reported for either the primary outcomes of pain on defecation and improvement in constipation or any of this review's secondary outcomes as listed above. Quality Five outcomes were assessed with the GRADE software: improvement in constipation, frequency of stools, abdominal discomfort, diarrhoea and women's satisfaction. These were assessed to be of moderate quality except for abdominal discomfort which was assessed to be of low quality. The results should therefore be interpreted with caution. There were no data available for evaluation of pain on defecation or consistency of stools. There is insufficient evidence to comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of interventions (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) for treating constipation in pregnancy, due to limited data (few studies with small sample size and no meta-analyses). Compared with bulk-forming laxatives, stimulant laxatives appear to be more effective in improvement of constipation (moderate quality evidence), but are accompanied by an increase in diarrhoea (moderate quality evidence) and abdominal discomfort (low quality evidence) and no difference in women's satisfaction (moderate quality evidence). Additionally, fibre supplementation may increase frequency of stools compared with no intervention (moderate quality evidence), although these results were of moderate risk of bias.There were no data for a comparison of other types of interventions, such as osmotic laxatives, stool softeners, lubricant laxatives and enemas and suppositories.More RCTs evaluating interventions for treating constipation in pregnancy are needed. These should cover different settings and evaluate the effectiveness of various interventions (including fibre, osmotic, and stimulant laxatives) on improvement in constipation, pain on defecation, frequency of stools and consistency of stools.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ethiopia 1 <1%
Unknown 148 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 21%
Student > Master 23 15%
Researcher 19 13%
Other 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 25 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 22%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 5%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 33 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 25 April 2016.
All research outputs
#1,369,871
of 15,265,969 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,728
of 11,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,270
of 286,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#124
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,265,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 286,258 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.