Trial reportBrazilian journal of anesthesiology (Elsevier)
Comparison of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in renal transplantation recipients: a randomized clinical trial.
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 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnd-stage renal diseases patients have a high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), which is multifactorial and need acute attention after renal transplantation for a successful outcome in term of an uneventful postoperative period. The study was done to compare the efficacy of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing early and late-onset PONV in live donor renal transplantation recipients (LDRT).
methodsThe prospective randomized double-blinded study was done on 112 consecutive patients planned for live donor renal transplantation. Patients of both sexes in the age group of 18...60 years were randomly divided into two groups: Group O (Ondansetron) and Group P (Palonosetron) with 56 patients in each group by computer-generated randomization. The study drug was administered intravenously (IV) slowly over 30.ßseconds, one hour before extubation. Postoperatively, the patients were accessed for PONV at 6, 24, and 72.ßhours using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) nausea score and PONV intensity scale.
resultsThe incidence of PONV in the study was found to be 30.35%. There was significant difference in incidence of PONV between Group P and Group O at 6.ßhours (12.5% vs. 32.1%, p.ß=.ß0.013) and 72.ßhours (1.8% vs. 33.9%, p.ß<.ß0.001), but insignificant difference at 24.ßhours (1.8% vs. 10.7%, p.ß=.ß0.113). VAS-nausea score was significantly lower in Group P as compared to Group O at a time point of 24.ßhours (45.54.ß...ß12.64 vs. 51.96.ß...ß14.70, p.ß=.ß0.015) and 72.ßhours (39.11.ß...ß10.32 vs. 45.7.ß...ß15.12, p.ß=.ß0.015).
conclusionPalonosetron is clinically superior to ondansetron in preventing early and delayed onset postoperative nausea and vomiting in live-related renal transplant recipients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.