ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2014
Influence of pharmaceutical care on the delayed emesis associated with chemotherapy.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and economic impact of clinical oncology pharmacy in cancer patients receiving injectable anticancer treatments: a systematic review.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023Pooled it
- A randomized controlled trial to assess the influence of a picture-based antiemetic medication calendar on medication-taking behavior in adults receiving chemotherapy.Journal of oncology pharmacy practice : official publication of the International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners · 2022Trial
- Unaccounted clinical factors in CINV outcomes: the missing role of IO therapy, metastatic sites, and prophylaxis strategy.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Consistency between patients and families in recognizing cancer chemotherapy side effects: A questionnaire survey.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2022Observational
- Change of genitourinary cancer patients' perception and expectations over the course of pharmacotherapy.PloS one · 2022Article
- Clinical Pharmacy Services in Ambulatory Oncology: An Environmental Scan of the Canadian Practice Landscape.The Canadian journal of hospital pharmacy · 2022Article
- Improving medication safety in oncology care: impact of clinical pharmacy interventions on optimizing patient safety.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2019Article
- Role and impact of pharmacists in Spain: a scoping review.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2018Article
- Pharmacist-managed clinics for patient education and counseling in Japan: current status and future perspectives.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplete control of emesis during chemotherapy remains to be achieved. This could be improved by increasing adherence to medicines and recommendations.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to analyse the effects of pharmaceutical care on the incidence of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adult cancer outpatients.
methodThis is a longitudinal prospective intervention study. Patients included were those who received a new cancer intravenous treatment. We compared complete response (no vomiting and no rescue treatment) and the incidence of nausea in the control group (CG) and in the intervention group (IG), as well as patients' adherence. Pharmaceutical intervention consisted of: reviewing the antiemetic protocol and giving some recommendations to the patients.
results102 patients were studied. In the delayed phase complete response was achieved in 84.8 % of the patients in the IG, compared with 69.6 % in the control group [absolute risk reduction (ARR), 15.2 %; p = 0.144]. Regarding absence of vomiting, the difference was higher (71.0 CG vs 97.0 % IG, ARR, 26.0%; p = 0.002). Absence of delayed nausea were also better in the IG (61 vs. 52 %). Compliant patients increased from 59 to 76 %.
conclusionThe intervention of a pharmacist reduced the incidence of delayed CINV and improved medication adherence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.