The systematical review a functionality participation ingredient "psyllium" exerts on constipated improvement - The systematical review a functionality participation ingredient "psyllium" exerts on constipated improvement
试验速览
- 阶段
- 未知
- 状态
- 已完成
- 发起方
- 入组人数
- 1
研究概览
简要总结
By ingesting a food-derived functional involved component "psyllium", continuous ingestion of RQ / CQ "food-derived functional component psyllium" defined in this SR research review improved constipation compared with the control group Do you let it? "The continuous use of psyllium improves the frequency of defecation, the number of days of defecation, the amount of defecation and improves constipation tendency", and "usage, dosage" confirmed efficacy and safety are as follows I came to the conclusion. 1. Effect to improve stool frequency (Direction) Once a day / 2 times / day / day (Dose) 4.0 g / day to 8.0 g / day per day 2. The effect of improving defecation days (Direction) Once a day / 2 times / day / day (Dose) 4.0 g / day to 8.0 g / day per day 3. Effect to improve defecation volume (Direction) Once a day / 2 times / day / day (Dose) 4.0 g / day to 8.0 g / day per day
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Others,meta-analysis etc
入排标准
- 年龄范围
- 20years-old 至 ot applicable（—）
- 性别
- All
入选标准
- 未提供
排除标准
- •[Exclusion Criteria] In the secondary screening, provisional candidate documents are obtained by the abstract, and those corresponding to one or more of the following exclusion criteria are excluded from the candidate literature. 1.Clinical research literature for subjects suffering from gastrointestinal and gastrointestinal diseases 2.Clinical research literature for minors 3.Literature of clinical research for pregnant women and lactating women 4.Clinical research literature not reviewed 5.Literature of clinical study without comparative control group 6.Clinical research literature in which the main involved component is not psylium 7.Clinical research literature which can not be evaluated by glucosylceramide and other equivalent ingredients 8.In addition, clinical research literature judged inappropriate by the reviewer's agreement