Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33890993›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2021

Comparison of Pregnancy Outcomes of Patients Treated With Ondansetron vs Alternative Antiemetic Medications in a Multinational, Population-Based Cohort.

Colin R Dormuth, Brandace Winquist, Anat Fisher, Fangyun Wu, Pauline Reynier, Samy Suissa, Matthew Dahl, Zhihai Ma, Xinya Lu, Jianguo Zhang and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. A Scoping Review of 5-HTPharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Colin R DormuthDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Brandace WinquistCollege of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Anat FisherDepartment of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Fangyun WuICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Pauline ReynierCenter for Clinical Epidemiology, Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Samy SuissaCenter for Clinical Epidemiology, Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Matthew DahlManitoba Centre for Health Policy, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Zhihai MaDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Xinya LuSaskatchewan Health Quality Council, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Jianguo ZhangDepartment of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Colette B RaymondManitoba Centre for Health Policy, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Kristian B FilionCenter for Clinical Epidemiology, Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Robert W PlattCenter for Clinical Epidemiology, Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Carolina MorielloCenter for Clinical Epidemiology, Jewish General Hospital, Lady Davis Institute, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
J Michael PatersonICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES) Investigators
Jewish General Hospital · CAMcGill University · CASaskatchewan Health Quality Council · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Calgary · CAUniversity of Manitoba · CAInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

CIHR DSE-146021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Ondansetron is frequently used to treat nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. Although some studies reported important safety signals, few studies have been sufficiently large to assess rare pregnancy outcomes. Objective: To study the association between ondansetron exposure during pregnancy and the risks of spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, and major congenital malformations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a cohort study conducted in 3 countries, with a meta-analysis. Participants included women and girls aged 12 to 55 years who experienced spontaneous abortion, induced abortion, stillbirth, or live birth between April 2002 and March 2016, as recorded in administrative data from 5 Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Ontario), the US IBM MarketScan Research Databases, and the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. The statistical analysis was completed in October 2020. Exposures: Exposure to ondansetron during pregnancy was compared with exposure to other commonly used antiemetics to minimize confounding by indication. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was fetal death, defined as either spontaneous abortion or stillbirth. Secondary outcomes were the 2 components of the primary outcome and major congenital malformations identified during the year after a live birth. Adjusted hazard ratios were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models with time-dependent drug exposures and were adjusted using high-dimensional propensity scores. For major congenital malformations, adjusted odds ratios were estimated from logistic models. Site-level results were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Sensitivity analyses considered second-line antiemetic exposure and exposure specifically during 4 to 10 weeks of gestation. Results: Data from 456 963 pregnancies were included in this study of fetal death (249 787 [54.7%] in Canada, 197 913 [43.3%] in the US, and 9263 [2.0%] in the UK; maternal age, ≤24 years, 93 201 patients [20.4%]; 25-29 years, 149 117 patients [32.6%]; 30-34 years, 142 442 patients [31.2%]; and ≥35 years, 72 203 patients [15.8%]). Fetal death occurred in 12 907 (7.9%) of 163 810 pregnancies exposed to ondansetron, and 17 476 (5.7%) of 306 766 pregnancies exposed to other antiemetics. The adjusted hazard ratios were 0.91 (95% CI, 0.67-1.23) for fetal death with time-dependent ondansetron exposure during pregnancy, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.64-1.04) for spontaneous abortion, and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.79-1.20) for stillbirth. For major congenital malformations, the estimated odds ratio was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.91-1.22). Results of sensitivity analyses were generally consistent with those of the primary analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: In this large, multicenter cohort study, there was no association between ondansetron exposure during pregnancy and increased risk of fetal death, spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, or major congenital malformations compared with exposure to other antiemetic drugs.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousAdultAntiemeticsCanadaCohort StudiesCongenital AbnormalitiesDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansMorning SicknessOndansetronPregnancyProportional Hazards ModelsStillbirthUnited KingdomUnited StatesAntiemeticsOndansetron

Identifiers

PMID33890993
PMCPMC8065380
OpenAlexW3155620668

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.