NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectivesThe Constipation Scoring System (CSS) is a validated tool for assessing constipation severity and has been previously applied in Parkinson's disease (PD) populations. However, comparative data on post-treatment CSS outcomes between individuals with and without PD remain lacking. This study aimed to compare post-treatment constipation severity between PD and non-PD patients in real-world clinical settings, with particular focus on neurology and gastroenterology outpatient clinics.MethodsThis retrospective chart review included 67 patients with PD from a neurology clinic and 50 non-PD patients with constipation from a gastroenterology clinic. Baseline characteristics were retrieved from electronic medical records. Follow-up assessments were conducted through direct or telephone interviews to evaluate constipation severity using the CSS. Additional data were collected on patients' self-reported intake of water, coffee, carbohydrates, and fiber, as well as exercise habits.ResultsPost-treatment CSS scores did not differ significantly between groups (PD: 6.07 ± 3.57 vs. non-PD: 5.24 ± 2.84; p = 0.172), with most participants classified as having mild constipation. No significant differences were observed in daily water, coffee, or fiber intake, or in exercise habits. However, non-PD patients reported significantly higher carbohydrate intake compared to PD patients (p = 0.003). PD patients more frequently reported long-standing constipation symptoms (≥ 6 years) than non-PD patients (p p = 0.020) and milk of magnesia (p = 0.070).ConclusionAlthough constipation severity and treatment outcomes were comparable between PD and non-PD patients, PD patients more often experienced long-standing symptoms and demonstrated distinct patterns of laxative use. Prospective studies are warranted to evaluate standardized treatment protocols to better clarify treatment outcomes and inform clinical practice.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.