Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33010934›Full record

Trial reportBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)

[Effect of palonosetron, ondansetron and dexamethasone in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in video cholecystectomy with total venous anesthesia with propofol-remifentanil - randomized clinical trial].

Neuber Martins Fonseca, Ludmila Ribeiro Pedrosa, Natália Melo, Ricardo de Ávila Oliveira

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Brazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Neuber Martins FonsecaUniversidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU), Faculdade de Medicina, Disciplina de Anestesiologia, Uberlândia, MG, Brasil; Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA), Comissão de Normas Técnicas, Brasil; CET-FMUF, Uberlândia, MG, Brasil; Coordinator of CE 26.06001 - Equipamento Respiratório e de Anestesia da ABNT and Delegate of ABNT no ISO/TC 121 - Anaesthetic and Respiratory Equipment, Uberlândia, MG, Brasil. Electronic address: neubermf@gmail.com.
Ludmila Ribeiro PedrosaUniversidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU), Uberlândia, MG, Brasil.
Natália MeloUniversidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU), Curso de Medicina, Uberlândia, MG, Brasil.
Ricardo de Ávila OliveiraUniversidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU), Curso de Medicina, Departamento de Cirurgia, Disciplina de Cirurgia Vascular, Uberlândia, MG, Brasil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND

objectivesThe incidence of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting (PONV) after video cholecystectomy is high. Progress in pharmacological PONV prophylaxis includes a new generation of 5-HT

methodsSixty individuals who underwent video cholecystectomy were randomized into three groups of 20 individuals according to the treatment administered: 0.125 mg of palonosetron (Group 1); 4 mg of ondansetron associated with 4 mg of dexamethasone (Group 2); 4 mg of dexamethasone (Group 3). General intravenous anesthesia was performed with propofol, remifentanil and rocuronium. The group to which the participant belonged was concealed from the investigator who assessed drug effect. PONV was assessed using the Rhodes Scale at 12 and 24 hours after surgery. Rescue medication was 0.655 to 1.5 mg of droperidol.

resultsGroup 1 presented a lower incidence of PONV and required less rescue medication in the first postoperative hour. There was no significant difference among the three groups regarding PONV incidence in the first 12 postoperative hours. Groups 1 and 2 were superior to Group 3 regarding the control of PONV from 12 to 24 hours, and after rescue medication from 12 to 24 hours. Group 1 showed significantly superior nausea control in the first 12 postoperative hours.

conclusionsThe present study showed evidence that palonosetron is superior to the drugs compared regarding a protracted antiemetic effect and less requirement of rescue drugs, mainly related to its ability to completely inhibit the uncomfortable symptom of nausea.

Indexed as

AdultAnesthetics, IntravenousAntiemeticsCholecystectomy, LaparoscopicDexamethasoneDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOndansetronPalonosetronPostoperative Nausea and VomitingPropofolRemifentanilRocuroniumAnesthetics, IntravenousAntiemeticsDexamethasoneOndansetronPalonosetronPropofolRemifentanilRocuroniumAnestesia, efeitos adversosAnesthesia, adverse effectsAntiémeticos, uso terapêuticoAntiemetics, therapeutic useCholecystectomy, laparoscopic, adverse effectsColecistectomia laparoscópica, efeitos adversos

Identifiers

PMID33010934
PMCPMC9373594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.