2004
DOI: 10.1248/yakushi.124.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effectiveness of Anti-emetics for the Prophylaxis of Cisplatin-Induced Delayed Emesis : A Systematic Review

Abstract: We performed a systematic review of the eŠectiveness of anti-emetics for prophylaxis of cisplatin-induced delayed emesis using meta-analysis. We selected 12 reports of randomized controlled trials from MEDLINE (1966 2003 and The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2003. Nine of these reports were evaluated as high quality and the others as low quality according to the evaluation criteria of Jadad et al., and only the high-quality reports were subjected to meta-analysis. The statistical results obtained from all 12 repo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
1

Year Published

2005
2005
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
(3 reference statements)
0
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Overall, 5-HT 3 receptor antagonists reduced the emetic response to the same extent during the acute and delayed phases, which contrasts with findings reported in the majority of clinical studies, describing limited or non-significant effect of 5-HT 3 receptor antagonists during the delayed phase [57, 73]. This discrepancy may be explained by a difference in outcome usually measured in humans (daily incidence, percentage of patients developing emesis) and ferrets (severity, number of R+V).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 62%
“…Overall, 5-HT 3 receptor antagonists reduced the emetic response to the same extent during the acute and delayed phases, which contrasts with findings reported in the majority of clinical studies, describing limited or non-significant effect of 5-HT 3 receptor antagonists during the delayed phase [57, 73]. This discrepancy may be explained by a difference in outcome usually measured in humans (daily incidence, percentage of patients developing emesis) and ferrets (severity, number of R+V).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 62%
“…The DEX 8 mg group and the DEX 16 mg group received DEX intravenous injection 30 min prior to CDDP. All patients then received a 5 HT 3 antagonist intravenous injection 30 min before CDDP. Protection from acute nausea (day 1) was signiˆcantly superior in the DEX 16 mg group compared with the DEX 8 mg group (DEX 8 mg, 76.5%; DEX 16 mg, 100%).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%