Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36675743›Full record

ReviewJournal of personalized medicine2022

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Palonosetron and Ramosetron in Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.

Hyo Jin Kim, EunJin Ahn, Geun Joo Choi, Hyun Kang

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of personalized medicine, 2022. 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
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 5-HTInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. A Scoping Review of 5-HTPharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hyo Jin KimDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University Gwangmyeong Hospital, Gwangmyeong-si 14353, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-7899-3925
EunJin AhnDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University Gwangmyeong Hospital, Gwangmyeong-si 14353, Republic of Korea.
Geun Joo ChoiDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul 06911, Republic of Korea.
Hyun KangDepartment of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul 06911, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-2844-5880
Chung-Ang University · KR

Funding

National Research Foundation of Korea NRF-2022R1F1A1074934
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This updated systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of the perioperative administration of palonosetron with that of ramosetron in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). A total of 17 randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of the perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron for preventing PONV were included. The primary outcomes were the incidences of postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), and PONV, which were measured in early, late, and overall phases. Subgroup analysis was performed on the basis of the administration time of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist and divided into two phases: early phase and the end of surgery. A total of 17 studies with 1823 patients were included in the final analysis. The incidence of retching (relative risk [RR] = 0.525; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.390 to 0.707) and late POV (RR = 0.604; 95% CI = 0.404 to 0.903) was significantly lower in the palonosetron group than in the ramosetron group. No significant differences were demonstrated in the incidence of PON, PONV, complete response, use of antiemetics, and adverse effects. Subgroup analysis showed that palonosetron was superior to ramosetron in terms of early PON, late PON, overall POV, and use of rescue antiemetics when they were administered early; in terms of retching, regardless of the timing of administration. Ramosetron was superior to palonosetron in terms of early PON when they were administered late. The prophylactic administration of palonosetron was more effective than that of ramosetron in preventing the development of retching and late POV. In this meta-analysis, no significant differences in PONV prevention between the two drugs were demonstrated. Further studies are required to validate the outcomes of our study.

Indexed as

palonosetronPONVramosetron

Identifiers

PMID36675743
PMCPMC9866437
OpenAlexW4313360757

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.