ReviewAmerican journal of cancer research2026
Efficacy of multimodal symptom management strategies for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in gynecologic cancer: a meta-analysis.
Review in American journal of cancer research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether multimodal symptom management improves chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) among patients with gynecologic cancer across acute, delayed, and overall treatment phases. We systematically searched major electronic databases and trial registries for eligible English-language studies from database inception to the final search date. Included studies enrolled female patients with gynecologic malignancies receiving chemotherapy and evaluated multimodal symptom management strategies for CINV control. Two independent researchers screened literature records and extracted data using a standardized form. Risk of bias of included studies were evaluated based on standard evaluation domains. All quantitative analyses were performed with a random-effects model. Dichotomous outcome data were pooled to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Predefined subgroup analyses were conducted for acute, delayed, and overall phases. We assessed statistical heterogeneity via Cochran's Q test and I
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.