ライフサイエンスコーパス: laxative

1 nal constipation), or a physician-prescribed laxative.

2 prebiotics affect bowel habit and are mildly laxative.

3 th CDI were studied, 65 of whom had received laxatives.

4 and symptoms of constipation, and prescribed laxatives.

5 of constipation, and 60% had been prescribed laxatives.

6 o ICD-10, signs and symptoms, and prescribed laxatives.

7 nd symptoms, ICD-10 diagnosis and prescribed laxatives.

8 iagnosed patients who did or did not receive laxatives.

9 er, lactulose, and polyethylene glycol-based laxatives.

10 ed a greater willingness to vomit and/or use laxatives.

11 herapeutic approaches than administration of laxatives.

12 testing and prescription and nonprescription laxatives.

13 pation who respond inadequately to available laxatives.

14 eases, such as antitumor necrosis factor and laxatives.

15 .02; patients with an inadequate response to laxatives, 42.6% vs. 28.8%, P=0.03).

16 with constipation, chronically dependent on laxatives, 5 healthy volunteers and 9 patients with mino

17 , in patients receiving versus not receiving laxatives (66.2% vs 56.3%, respectively, p = 0.224) by I

18 s in patients receiving versus not receiving laxatives (66.2% vs 56.3%, respectively; P = .224) by ID

19 order symptoms such as binging, vomiting, or laxative abuse were observed between the sexes.

20 The laxative action of phenolphthalein (5) is believed to re

21 y more children undergoing PPT stopped using laxatives (adjusted odds ratio, 6.5; 95% confidence inte

22 ch as inclusion of the patient's most recent laxative administration on the CCDS.

23 nstipation that was manageable with diet and laxative agents, respectively.

24 antibiotics: aIRR, 2.78 [95% CI, 2.14-3.59]; laxatives: aIRR, 2.26 [95% CI.

25 be the prevalence of constipation and use of laxatives among older hospitalized patients and to inves

26 He was given an enema, followed by laxative and manual disimpaction of stool.

27 mission, and colectomy, were observed in the laxative and no laxative groups.

28 mission, and colectomy, were observed in the laxative and no laxative groups.

29 , bowel modifiers such as fibre supplements, laxatives and anti-diarrhoeal agents) fail, anorectal ma

30 with microbiome-disturbing agents was found; laxatives and antibiotics were independently associated

31 Urgent treatment with laxatives and fecal disimpaction is indicated to prevent

32 PIMs included: long-term use of stimulant laxatives and high-dosages of ferrous sulfate, and a sig

33 Comparative data on current laxatives and the development of medications with novel

34 healthy weight control behaviors (eg, use of laxatives and/or vomiting [for 1997, OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.

35 Macrogol was the most prescribed laxative, and prucalopride and pelvic floor rehabilitati

36 QoL 19.6 points lower than those soiling on laxatives, and 20.7 points lower than those who were cle

37 story of Clostridioides difficile infection, laxatives, and antibiotic use.

38 Acid suppressors, antiemetics, laxatives, and antitumor necrosis factor therapies are t

39 Treatment includes dietary changes, use of laxatives, and cognitive and behavioral interventions su

40 history of C. difficile, use of antibiotics, laxatives, and enteral nutrition, particularly moderate-

41 for compensatory behaviors (vomiting, use of laxatives, and excessive exercise; 76.3% compared with 5

42 patients were aged 18-80 years, did not use laxatives, and had a stable opioid regimen for treatment

43 fluid intake), modification of diuretics and laxatives, and monitoring of electrolytes.

44 ld to moderate constipation, bulking agents, laxatives, and stool softeners are used cautiously so as

45 fication or discontinuation of diuretics and laxatives; and additional measures, such as intravenous

46 including Clostridium difficile, drugs (e.g. laxatives, antibiotics) and enteral feeds.

47 that several non-antibiotic drugs, including laxatives, antiemetics, and opioids, are associated with

48 antacids: AOR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.07-1.45]; and laxatives: AOR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.17-1.99]; transfeminine

49 supplementation and stimulant and/or osmotic laxatives, as appropriate, followed, if necessary, by in

50 SBM per week from baseline, diphenyl methane laxatives at a dose of 10 mg once daily ranked first at

51 n of patients with an inadequate response to laxatives before enrollment, time to first postdose spon

52 ealth, supplying polyphenol antioxidants and laxative benefits.

53 Ms) per week, the stimulant diphenyl methane laxatives bisacodyl and sodium picosulfate, at a dose of

54 ed tomographic colonography (CTC) requires a laxative bowel preparation, which inhibits screening par

55 ate anaphylaxis (100%) not only to PEG-based laxatives/bowel preparations or injections, but also to

56 luding non-absorbable antibiotics or osmotic laxatives, but is rescued by restoring the paternal micr

57 psychopharmacologic medicine, antacids, and laxatives compared with cisgender controls (transmasculi

58 -line CRC screening modalities (non- or full-laxative computed tomographic colonography, flexible sig

59 ating behaviors (27 of 84 [32.1%]); improper laxative, diet pill, or diuretic use (30 of 84 [35.7%]);

60 ved castor oil as over-the-counter (OTC) for laxative drug.

61 When given orally, it has a laxative effect and induces labor in pregnant females.

62 In mice lacking EP(3) receptors, the laxative effect and the uterus contraction induced via r

63 of the EP(3) receptor as a target to induce laxative effects.

64 the efficacy of drugs (osmotic or stimulant laxatives, elobixibat, linaclotide, lubiprostone, mizagl

65 pation (CIC) that is refractory to available laxatives focuses on the importance of defecation disord

66 proach consists of behavior modification and laxative for children with encopresis with constipation

67 hane derivative) has been commonly used as a laxative for most of the twentieth century, but little i

68 who had received stable doses of opioids and laxatives for 3 or more days without relief of opioid-in

69 upport the efficacy of novel and established laxatives for both functional and opioid-induced constip

70 st-line treatments such as fiber and osmotic laxatives for constipation, opioids for diarrhea, antisp

71 Most patients, dependent on laxatives for defecation, were able to generate normal m

72 These results suggest a possible role for laxative-free CTC as an alternate screening method.

73 Patient experience was better with laxative-free CTC.

74 ectomy, were observed in the laxative and no laxative groups.

75 ectomy, were observed in the laxative and no laxative groups.

76 Laxatives have been shown to improve continence, possibl

77 nefit profiles) the therapeutic potential of laxatives in hyperkalemia management in advanced CKD.

78 mal subjects, each studied before and during laxative-induced diarrhea; 17 patients with idiopathic c

79 >/=3 unformed stools in 24 h] and absence of laxative intake in the prior 48 h).

80 material in conjunction with a hyperosmotic laxative (magnesium citrate) was associated with the bes

81 proliferation by bowel preparation with oral laxatives may confound the findings of such studies, but

82 hronic constipation which responds poorly to laxatives may result from the use of drugs such as opioi

83 eedback, sphincteroplasty, antidiarrheal and laxative medications, and sacral nerve stimulation) requ

84 ile spores ingested increasing quantities of laxatives, more individuals experienced C. difficile blo

85 ause of the availability of over-the-counter laxatives, most patients consider themselves able to sel

86 consisted of education, toilet training, and laxatives (n = 26), whereas PPT included SMC plus specif

87 s been established for stimulant and osmotic laxatives, new intestinal secretogogues, and peripherall

88 ive interventions directed toward the use of laxatives or constipating agents, low toileting frequenc

89 no evidence to support changes in lifestyle, laxatives or over the counter supplements.

90 also reported whether they took diet pills, laxatives, or diuretics, engaged in binge eating, induce

91 vative treatment, i.e. administration of the laxative polyethylene glycol for the passage of ingested

92 emiological and clinical investigations into laxative prescriptions consisting of DOSS.

93 These findings might mediate the long-known laxative properties of BAs, and TGR5 might be a therapeu

94 late, and viscous fibers, respectively, with laxative properties yet contrasting fermentability.

95 Although diphenyl methane laxatives ranked first at 4 weeks, patients with milder

96 preoperative and postoperative analgesic and laxative regimens.

97 ts who do not respond to currently available laxatives requires further evaluation at experienced cen

98 .02; patients with an inadequate response to laxatives: study 04, 48.7% vs. 28.8%, P=0.002; study 05,

99 When used appropriately, available stimulant laxatives such as senna and bisacodyl are both safe and

100 d patients who previously did not respond to laxatives, suggesting that this drug is likely to be the

101 In patients on laxatives the type of malformation, but not sacral ratio

102 Compared with women who never used laxatives, the multivariate relative risks associated wi

103 d hormone use, physical activity, and use of laxatives, the relative risks associated with having bow

104 Following the administration of appropriate laxative therapy along with antihelminthic therapy, sign

105 ed due to absence of diarrhea and receipt of laxative therapy, respectively.

106 ave not responded adequately to conventional laxative therapy, though use is relatively contraindicat

107 ty symptoms, depressive symptoms, and use of laxatives throughout study follow-up, although differenc

108 sidential care facilities are commonly given laxatives to treat constipation; however, these may not

109 Laxative treatment rescued mice from lethality following

110 ne (moderate certainty), polyethylene glycol laxatives, tricyclic antidepressants, and antispasmodics

111 tegaserod, lubiprostone, polyethylene glycol laxatives, tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotoni

112 After multivariable adjustment, time-varying laxative use (compared with nonuse) was significantly as

113 ents to aid laxation, and potentially reduce laxative use and the unwanted side effects of diarrhea.

114 eparation and patients with prior opioid and laxative use may be more likely to have inadequate bowel

115 Laxative use was independently associated with lower ris

116 lative risks associated with weekly to daily laxative use were 1.00 (95% CI: 0.72, 1.40) for colorect

117 we examined the association of time-varying laxative use with risk of dyskalemia (i.e., hypokalemia

118 er, little is known about the association of laxative use with risk of dyskalemia in advanced CKD.

119 Laxative use within 48 hours before stool testing, sever

120 Laxative use within 48 hours prior to stool testing, sev

121 le), and autonomic function (blood pressure, laxative use).

122 sociation between infrequent bowel movement, laxative use, and risk of colorectal cancer and indicate

123 ssociation between bowel movement frequency, laxative use, and the risk of colorectal cancer in 84,57

124 satory behaviors (eg, self-induced vomiting, laxative use, diuretic use, diet pill use, driven exerci

125 lting from compensatory behaviors (vomiting, laxative use, fasting, overexercise) was significant for

126 ificant diarrhea and in patients with recent laxative use.

127 is compensatory mechanism may be enhanced by laxative use; however, little is known about the associa

128 Precluding recent laxative users from CDI testing, as proposed by the IDSA

129 ncreased risks of HO-CDI, whereas the use of laxatives was associated with a lower risk of CDI (aOR 0

130 Being prescribed laxatives was associated with longer length of stay (OR

131 C. difficile test order was attempted or if laxatives were recently received.

132 desire for) studies that compare inexpensive laxatives with newer agents that work by other mechanism

133 No studies have compared inexpensive laxatives with newer drugs with different mechanisms.

134 52% had laxation without the use of a rescue laxative within 4 hours after two or more of the first f

135 sting for C. difficile if they have received laxatives within the preceding 48 hours.