CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-15). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 2 cited sources was verified (1 access-limited, verified via index/summary and marked), and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.7.
Verdict No. 2656 · Search date 2026-08-15 · Methodology v0.7

Abdominal massage,
does it really help with Reduced constipation severity over four weeks in functional chronic constipation?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 50 · Safety caution
A large four-week symptom difference was observed, but long-term independent replication is absent
Mild abdominal discomfort may occur. Severe pain, vomiting, bleeding, suspected obstruction, recent abdominal surgery, or pregnancy warrants professional review before massage.
What the
research shows
The grade is C with 50 points. A placebo-controlled trial randomized and analyzed all 74 participants, 37 per arm. Constipation severity fell from 43.0 to 13.0 with massage and from 43.3 to 31.2 with detuned ultrasound, with a group-by-time P<.001. The reported standardized effect, d=1.99, was large, but one center, four weeks, and a subjective outcome with distinguishable treatments leave confirmation at C.
What the
ads claim
The result does not establish a permanent cure or replacement for medication. It concerns short-term symptom reduction after therapist-delivered massage alongside lifestyle advice.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • Massage averaged 10 minutes three times weekly for four weeks; detuned ultrasound lasted 15 minutes twice weekly.
  • Total CSI changed from 43.0 to 13.0 versus 43.3 to 31.2, and the article reported d=1.99.
  • Unlike an earlier verdict on infant massage and weight, this verdict is limited to symptom severity in adult functional chronic constipation.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2656 · C 50
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

The 2022 single-center trial by Doğan İG, Gürşen C, Akbayrak T, Balaban YH, Vahabov C, Üzelpasacı E, and Özgül S randomized 74 Rome IV functional-constipation patients 1:1 using an online blocked list. The person creating and assigning the list was separate from assessment and treatment, and no participant dropped out. Massage was delivered for 10 minutes three times weekly, while detuned ultrasound lasted 15 minutes twice weekly, for four weeks. Total CSI changed from 43.0 to 13.0 versus 43.3 to 31.2, with d=1.99. Registration was NCT03764995 and the authors reported no conflicts, but a funding statement was not verified, so public independence was not assumed.

02

Why this is classified as C (50)

A large short-term symptom difference was limited by a small single-center four-week trial and a subjective outcome with uncertain masking, giving C with 50 points.

Counterpoint. Severe pain, suspected obstruction, recent abdominal surgery, or pregnancy calls for clinical assessment before abdominal pressure is attempted.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Cross-checked the primary CSI outcome, all 74 analyzed, randomization procedure, treatment contrast, and reported d=1.99 against the original article and registry

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointPPatient-reported treatment goal - the symptom is the goal
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI1Mixed funding sources
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (C).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Reduced constipation severity over four weeksCThe article reported d=1.99 for the CSI change.
Sustained long-term benefit?The trial did not measure durability beyond four weeks.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Doğan İG, Gürşen C, Akbayrak T, Balaban YH, Vahabov C, Üzelpasacı E, Özgül S. 2022Single-center randomized placebo-controlled trial74Funding statement not verified; authors reported no conflictsTotal Constipation Severity Instrument score at four weeks43.0 to 13.0 versus 43.3 to 31.2; group-by-time P<.001; d=1.99Large short-term effect limited by small size, short follow-up, and uncertain masking
§

Receipt — 2 References

Of 2 cited sources, 1 had limited original-page access (blocked or summary-only) and were verified via index/summary, marked partial; the rest were verified at the original page. As of 2026-08-15.

Doğan İG, Gürşen C, Akbayrak T, Balaban YH, Vahabov C, Üzelpasacı E, Özgül S. Abdominal Massage in Functional Chronic Constipation: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial. Phys Ther. 2022;102(7):pzac058. PMID: 35554601. DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzac058. NCT03764995.
partial
Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-15 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Abdominal massage x short-term functional-constipation relief Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] Abdominal massage x short-term functional-constipation relief — Evidence Grade C·50. 2 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/gut/abdominal-massage-functional-chronic-constipation-severity/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.