ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2025
Comparison of efficacy and safety between palonosetron and ondansetron to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing non-laparoscopic surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 2025. 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.
- Assessment of GRADE utilisation in published systematic review and meta-analysis.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2026Article
- Automated tools in systematic reviews: Current trends.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common and distressing complication in all types of surgeries involving general anaesthesia. To establish evidence for best clinical practices, this meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing PONV in patients undergoing non-laparoscopic surgeries. Methods: A PRISMA-guided systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, and Cochrane Library to identify comparative studies that reported the efficacy (nausea and vomiting) at postoperative time points, namely T1 (0-2 hours), T2 (0-6 hours), T3 (12-24 hours), T4 (24-48 hours), and T5 (24-72 hours), as well as safety (number of incidence of adverse effects). A meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety groups was performed using a random-effects model. Results: Nineteen randomised controlled trials were included. Pooled risk ratio (RR) revealed that patients receiving palonosetron were significantly less likely to develop nausea [0-2 h, RR = 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.50, 1.34), Conclusion: Palonosetron and ondansetron exhibited comparable efficacy in the early hours (0-6 h). Palonosetron showed superior efficacy beyond 6 hours, providing sustained PONV prophylaxis in patients undergoing various surgeries, excluding laparoscopic procedures.
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.