Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25737619›Full record

ArticleJournal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India2015

Palonosetron Versus Ramosetron Prophylaxis for Control of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting after Cesarean Delivery under Spinal Anesthesia.

Suman Chattopadhyay, Sebanti Goswami

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02468323 (Prophylactic Antiemetic Efficacy of Palonosetron Versus Ondansetron for Cesarean Sections Under Regional Anesthesia), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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.

NCT02468323 phase4completednot on this map

Prophylactic Antiemetic Efficacy of Palonosetron Versus Ondansetron for Cesarean Sections Under Regional Anesthesia: Study Single Center, Prospective, Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo Controlled

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital de BaseRan2015 to 2017Enrolled150ConditionsPONVArmsPlacebo, Ondansetron, Palonosetron
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Suman ChattopadhyayDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Medical College, Kolkata, 88 College Street, Kolkata, 700073 India ; BC-103, Salt Lake, Kolkata, 700064 India.
Sebanti GoswamiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Medical College, Kolkata, 88 College Street, Kolkata, 700073 India.
KPC Medical College and Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePostoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery are distressing to both patients and surgeons. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of palonosetron and ramosetron (both newer and highly potent 5HT3 receptor antagonists) in nausea and vomiting in cesarean delivery after spinal anesthesia.

methodsIn this randomized, double-blind study, 109 women received either palonosetron (0.075 mg) or ramosetron (0.3 mg) intravenously immediately after clamping of the fetal umbilical cord. Nausea, vomiting, adverse events, and overall satisfaction were then observed for 48 h after administration of spinal anesthesia.

resultsA complete response (defined as no postoperative nausea and vomiting) during first 0-2 h postoperative after administration of spinal anesthesia was achieved in 85.5 % of patients with palonosetron and in 83.3 % of patients with ramosetron (p > 0.05). However, the corresponding incidence during 2 to 24 h was 70.9 and 53.7 %, respectively (p < 0.05), while it was 63.3 and 44.4 % at 24-48 h after anesthesia (p < 0.05). Along with a more complete response, the severity of nausea was also lesser with palonosetron during the corresponding study periods (2-24 and 24-48 h, respectively; p < 0.05). Patients who received palonosetron were also more satisfied than those who received ramosetron (p < 0.05). No difference in adverse events was observed in any of the groups.

conclusionTo conclude, prophylactic therapy with palonosetron is more effective than prophylactic therapy with ramosetron for the long-term prevention of PONV after cesarean section.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaCesarean sectionPalonosetronPostoperative nausea and vomitingRamosetronSpinal

Identifiers

PMID25737619
PMCPMC4342381
OpenAlexW2049918660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.