Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36568268›Full record

ReviewCurrent research in pharmacology and drug discovery2022

Anti-emetic effects of thalidomide: Evidence, mechanism of action, and future directions.

Paul L R Andrews, Robin S B Williams, Gareth J Sanger

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current research in pharmacology and drug discovery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Serendipity in Neuro-Oncology: The Evolution of Chemotherapeutic Agents.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Paul L R AndrewsDivision of Biomedical Sciences, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Robin S B WilliamsCentre for Biomedical Sciences, Department of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, United Kingdom.
Gareth J SangerBlizard Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom.
Queen Mary University of London · GBRoyal Holloway University of London · GBSt George's, University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rationale for using thalidomide (THD) as a treatment for nausea and vomiting during pregnancy in the late 1950s appears to have been based on its sedative or hypnotic properties. In contrast to contemporaneous studies on the anti-emetic activity of phenothiazines, we were unable to identify publications reporting preclinical or clinical evaluation of THD as an anti-emetic. Our survey of the literature revealed a clinical study in 1965 showing THD reduced vomiting in cancer chemotherapy which was substantiated by similar studies from 2000, particularly showing efficacy in the delayed phase of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. To identify the mechanism(s) potentially involved in thalidomide's anti-emetic activity we reviewed its pharmacology in the light of nausea and vomiting mechanisms and their pharmacology with a particular emphasis on chemotherapy and pregnancy. The process identified the following potential mechanisms: reduced secretion of Growth Differentiation Factor 15, suppression of inflammation/prostaglandin production, downregulation of cytotoxic drug induced upregulation of iNOS, and modulation of BK (K

Indexed as

ChemotherapyGDF15Hyperemesis gravidarumNauseaThalidomideVomiting

Identifiers

PMID36568268
PMCPMC9780081
OpenAlexW4307450150

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.