Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27162748›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons2016

Comparison of ondansetron and granisetron for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia: a prospective, randomised, and double blind study.

Kiran Savant, Rakshit Vijay Sinai Khandeparker, Vikas Berwal, Purva Vijay Khandeparker, Hunny Jain

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Kiran SavantOral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Private Practitioner, Bengaluru, India.ORCID 0000-0003-0867-5523
Rakshit Vijay Sinai KhandeparkerOral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Richardsons Dental and Craniofacial Hospital, Nagercoil, India.ORCID 0000-0003-0809-792X
Vikas BerwalDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (PGIMS), Rohtak, India.ORCID 0000-0002-7121-1986
Purva Vijay KhandeparkerDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Hospicio Hospital, Margao, India.ORCID 0000-0001-7789-3773
Hunny JainDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Yogitha Dental College, Ratnagiri, India.ORCID 0000-0002-4206-3902
Balaji Dental & Craniofacial Hospital · INESIC Hospital · INNational Medical Research Center of Dentistry and Maxillofacial Surgery · RUNavodaya Dental College and Hospital · INPandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the efficacy of intravenous ondansetron (4 mg, 2 mL) and granisetron (2 mg, 2 mL) for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients during oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures under general anesthesia. MATERIALS AND

methodsA prospective, randomized, and double blind clinical study was carried out with 60 patients undergoing oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures under general anesthesia. Patients were divided into two groups of 30 individuals each. Approximately two minutes before induction of general anesthesia, each patient received either 4 mg (2 mL) ondansetron or 2 mg (2 mL) granisetron intravenously in a double blind manner. Balanced anesthetic technique was used for all patients. Patients were assessed for episodes of nausea, retching, vomiting, and the need for rescue antiemetic at intervals of 0-2, 3, 6, 12, and 24 hours after surgery. Incidence of complete response and adverse effects were assessed at 24 hours postoperatively. Data was tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis using the chi-square test, unpaired t-test, or the Mann-Whitney U-test as appropriate. A P-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

resultsThere was no statistically significant difference between the two groups for incidence of PONV or the need for rescue antiemetic. Both study drugs were well tolerated with minimum adverse effects; the most common adverse effect was headache. The overall incidence of complete response in the granisetron group (86.7%) was significantly higher than the ondansetron group (60.0%).

conclusionGranisetron at an intravenous dose of 2 mg was found to be safe, well tolerated, and more effective by increasing the incidence of complete response compared to 4 mg intravenous ondansetron when used for antiemetic prophylaxis in maxillofacial surgery patients receiving general anesthesia. Benefits of granisetron include high receptor specificity and high potency, which make it a valuable alternative to ondansetron.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaGeneralGranisetronOndansetronPostoperative nausea and vomiting

Identifiers

PMID27162748
PMCPMC4860384
OpenAlexW2346427717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.