ReviewCureus2024
Comparative Efficacy of Novel Versus Traditional Antiemetic Agents in Preventing Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting With Moderate or Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review critically evaluates the comparative efficacy of novel and traditional antiemetic agents in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving moderate or highly emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC/HEC). The findings suggest that novel agents, such as netupitant/palonosetron (NEPA), olanzapine, and transdermal granisetron (GTDS), offer comparable or superior efficacy to traditional antiemetic regimens, including standard options like aprepitant combined with 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists and corticosteroids. These novel agents demonstrate strong effectiveness in controlling both acute and delayed CINV and offer practical advantages, such as simplified dosing regimens and improved patient adherence, particularly in resource-limited settings. Additionally, traditional regimens incorporating aprepitant remain effective in preventing CINV. However, the review highlights the need for more direct comparisons between novel and traditional agents, as well as further studies evaluating novel therapies in real-world clinical settings. Future research should focus on larger, long-term trials to better establish the role of novel antiemetic agents and optimize CINV management strategies.
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.