SynthesisFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
Clinical efficacy of non-pharmacological treatment of functional constipation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gut microbiota and constipation: from causal evidence to therapeutic strategies-a state-of-the-art narrative review.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Fecal microbiota transplantation improves functional constipation through the gut microbiome-bile acid-receptor axis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Abdominal compartment syndrome with colonic hypoganglionosis and massive colonic distension in a young adult: A case report.World journal of clinical cases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this study is to compare the relative effectiveness and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for the treatment of functional constipation (FC). Methods: We searched Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for randomized controlled trials published from 2010 to November 2024. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane bias risk tool and Review Manager 5.4, and the evidence was graded using GRADEPro. A network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted using R Studio, and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was used to rank the included drugs for each outcome measure to compare the clinical efficacy of different treatment methods for chronic functional constipation. Results: A total of 29 RCT studies were included, with a total of 4389 patients with functional constipation who were randomly assigned to receive placebo or one of the nine different non-pharmacological treatment methods. The assessment of bias risk showed that the bias risk of most included studies was low. The results showed that the first-ranked treatment method for clinical efficacy was acupuncture; the first-ranked treatment method for changes in spontaneous bowel movement (SBM) and complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) was fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT); the first-ranked treatment method for changes in the Bristol Stool Form Scale (BSFS) score was FMT; the first-ranked treatment method for changes in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) score after treatment was the Vibration capsule; the first-ranked treatment method for changes in the Patient Assessment of Constipation Symptoms (PAC-SYM) score after treatment was percutaneous electrical stimulation; and the treatment method with the lowest incidence of adverse reactions was probiotics. Conclusion: Based on the SUCRA values and NMA results, we found that FMT showed better effects and higher safety on BSFS scores, SBM, and CSBM. In addition, acupuncture showed a good clinical efficacy. We hypothesize that the combination of FMT and acupuncture may be an effective and safe treatment option for functional constipation, but further high-quality clinical studies are needed to confirm this. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42024625747.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.