Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27992509›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2016

Palonosetron and Ramosetron Compared for Effectiveness in Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

EunJin Ahn, GeunJoo Choi, Hyun Kang, ChongWha Baek, YongHun Jung, YoungCheol Woo, SangSeok Lee, YeoGoo Chang

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Effects of Ramosetron on Nausea and Vomiting Following Spinal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis.Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2018
    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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

EunJin AhnDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inje University Seoul Paik Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
GeunJoo ChoiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hyun KangDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2844-5880
ChongWha BaekDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
YongHun JungDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
YoungCheol WooDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
SangSeok LeeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Inje University Sanggye Paik Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
YeoGoo ChangDepartment of General Surgery, Inje University Seoul Paik Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
Chung-Ang University · KRInje University Seoul Paik Hospital · KRInje University Sanggye Paik Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous randomized controlled trials have reported conflicting findings on the superiority of palonosetron over ramosetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Therefore, the present systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016038120) and performed to compare the efficacy of perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron for preventing PONV. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared the effectiveness of perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron. The primary endpoints were defined as the incidence of postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), and PONV. A total of 695 patients were included in the final analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed through administration times which were divided into two phases: the early phase of surgery and the end of surgery. Combined analysis did not show differences between palonosetron and ramosetron in the overall incidence of PON, POV or PONV. Palonosetron was more effective than ramosetron, when the administration time for the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist was during the early phase of the operation. Otherwise, ramosetron was more effective than palonosetron, when the administration time was at the end of surgery. However, the quality of evidence for each outcome was low or very low and number of included studies was small, limiting our confidence in findings.

Indexed as

BenzimidazolesFemaleHumansIsoquinolinesMalePalonosetronPostoperative Nausea and VomitingQuinuclidinesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicBenzimidazolesIsoquinolinesPalonosetronQuinuclidinesramosetron

Identifiers

PMID27992509
PMCPMC5167547
OpenAlexW2564939399

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.