Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 22 July 2009
- Published on: 30 March 2009
- Published on: 6 January 2009
- Published on: 22 July 2009Childhood constipationShow More
We read with great interest the systematic review written by pijpers and the response to the article by candy. Functional childhood constipation continues to top the charts in the paediatric out patient clinics and laxatives seem to be a sensible option along with dietary intervention, but the authors say these are not evidence based.
The authors, after a mammoth systematic literature review, concluded statin...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 30 March 2009Pijpers et al.Show More
Pijpers et al rightly highlight the lack of high quality evidence for the treatment of constipation. In their conclusion they state ‘Insufficient evidence exists supporting that laxative treatment is better than placebo in children with constipation’. This paper derives from the Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, where Benninga’s group have successfully demolished all other treatments for constipation other than laxative...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 6 January 2009CorrectionShow More
To our regret we noticed an error in our systematic review “Currently recommended treatments of childhood constipation are not evidence based. A systematic literature review on the effect of laxative treatment and dietary measures (Pijpers et al.).”, published online 19 August 2008 (adc.2007.127233v1).
We would like to make the following corrections:
In table 4b, the correct first outcome measure for the...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.