Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25104916›Full record

Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2014

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, and multicenter trial of prophylactic effects of ramosetronon postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after craniotomy: comparison with ondansetron.

Jung-Hee Ryu, Ji-Eun Lee, Young-Jin Lim, Deok-Man Hong, Hee-Pyoung Park, Jong-In Han, Hee-Jung Baik, Hyun-Zu Kim, Kyeong-Tae Min, Sang-Hwan Do

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Jung-Hee RyuDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 166 Gumi-ro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do 463-707, South Korea ; Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea.
Ji-Eun LeeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Young-Jin LimDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea ; Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea.
Deok-Man HongDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea ; Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea.
Hee-Pyoung ParkDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, South Korea ; Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea.
Jong-In HanDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.
Hee-Jung BaikDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea.
Hyun-Zu KimDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Kyeong-Tae MinDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Severance Hospital, Seoul, South Korea.
Sang-Hwan DoDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 166 Gumi-ro, Bundang-gu, Seongnam-si, Gyeonggi-do 463-707, South Korea ; Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, College of Medicine, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea.
Seoul National University Hospital · KREwha Womans University · KRSeverance Hospital · KRSeoul National University · KRSeoul National University Bundang Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCraniotomy patients have a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This prospective, randomized, double-blind, multi-center study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of prophylactic ramosetron in preventing PONV compared with ondansetron after elective craniotomy in adult patients.

methodsA total of 160 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II patients aged 19-65 years who were scheduled to undergo elective craniotomy for various intracranial lesions were enrolled in this study. All patients received total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and remifentanil. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups to receive ondansetron (4 mg; group A, n  =  55), ondansetron (8 mg; group B, n  =  54), or ramosetron (0.3 mg; group C, n  =  51) intravenously at the time of dural closure. The incidence of PONV, the need for rescue antiemetics, pain score, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) consumption, and adverse events were recorded 48 h postoperatively.

resultsAmong the initial 160 patients, 127 completed the study and were included in the final analysis. The incidences of PONV were lower (nausea, 14% vs. 59% and 41%, respectively; P  <  0.001; vomiting, P  =  0.048) and the incidence of complete response was higher (83% vs. 37% and 59%, respectively; P  <  0.001) in group C than in groups A and B at 48 h postoperatively. There were no significant differences in the incidence of PONV or need for rescue antiemetics 0-2 h postoperatively, but significant differences were observed in the incidence of PONV and complete response among the three groups 2-48 h postoperatively. No statistically significant intergroup differences were observed in postoperative pain, PCA consumption, or adverse events.

conclusionIntravenous administration of ramosetron at 0.3 mg reduced the incidence of PONV and rescue antiemetic requirement in craniotomy patients. Ramosetron at 0.3 mg was more effective than ondansetron at 4 or 8 mg for preventing PONV in adult craniotomy patients.

trial registrationCLINICAL RESEARCH INFORMATION SERVICE (CRIS) IDENTIFIER: KCT0000320. Registered 9 January 2012.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAntiemeticsBenzimidazolesCraniotomyDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOndansetronPostoperative Nausea and VomitingPostoperative PainProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultAntiemeticsBenzimidazolesOndansetronramosetronCraniotomyOndansetronPostoperative nausea and vomitingRamosetron

Identifiers

PMID25104916
PMCPMC4124476
OpenAlexW2159237421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.