SynthesisInternational journal of clinical oncology2026
Systematic review of antiemetic therapy for low emetogenic chemotherapy: comparing 5-HT
Synthesis in International journal of clinical oncology, 2026. 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
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) significantly impact quality of life of patients with cancer. Although antiemetic guidelines exist for low-emetic chemotherapy (LEC), recommendations vary across international guidelines and direct evidence comparing 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (5-HT3 RAs) with dexamethasone monotherapy is lacking.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized comparative studies, and observational studies directly comparing 5-HT
resultsA systematic search identified 427 articles (87 from PubMed, 337 from the Cochrane Library, and three from Ichushi-Web), with three additional records identified through other sources. After the first screening of 430 articles, 425 records were excluded, and five records were used for full-text assessment. Following the second screening, five full-text articles were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria.
conclusionsThis systematic review identified no direct comparative evidence. Future efforts to strengthen the evidence base should include not only prospective comparative trials where feasible but also observational studies, real-world data analyses, and other complementary approaches that better reflect routine clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42479257What 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.