SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Risk prediction models for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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.
- Baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio is not associated with chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients with breast cancer: A single-center retrospective cohort study.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2026Article
- Efficacy of multimodal symptom management strategies for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in gynecologic cancer: a meta-analysis.American journal of cancer research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To systematically review and critically appraise currently available risk prediction models for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). Methods: We searched nine electronic databases from inception to April 2025. Data extraction followed the CHARMS checklist. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed using the PROBAST tool, and reporting transparency was evaluated against the TRIPOD statement. Results: 15 studies describing 16 distinct CINV risk prediction models were included. Reported area under the curve (AUC) values ranged from 0.629 to 0.850. Frequently incorporated predictors included age, gender, history of anticipatory nausea and vomiting, chemotherapy regimen, and number of chemotherapy cycles. All studies demonstrated a high risk of bias, primarily attributable to suboptimal data sources and inadequate reporting in the analytical domain. Meta-analysis of AUC values from eight development models yielded a pooled estimate of 0.74 (95% Conclusions: Existing CINV risk prediction models exhibit significant methodological limitations and remain largely in the developmental phase. While common predictors emerge, controversies persist. Future research should prioritize developing novel models with larger sample sizes, rigorous methodology, multicenter external validation, enhanced clinical utility, and improved reporting transparency. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023395416.
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.