Skip to main content
Download PDF

Comparative efficacy of serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMC Medicine volume 13, Article number: 136 (2015) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are commonly used to decrease nausea and vomiting for surgery patients. We conducted a systematic review on the comparative efficacy of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists.

Methods

Searches were done in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies comparing 5-HT3 receptor antagonists with each other, placebo, and/or combined with other antiemetic agents for patients undergoing surgical procedures. Screening search results, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently. Random-effects pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted. PROSPERO registry number: CRD42013003564.

Results

Overall, 450 studies and 80,410 patients were included after the screening of 7,608 citations and 1,014 full-text articles. Significantly fewer patients experienced nausea with any drug relative to placebo, except for ondansetron plus metoclopramide in a NMA including 195 RCTs and 24,230 patients. Significantly fewer patients experienced vomiting with any drug relative to placebo except for palonosetron plus dexamethasone in NMA including 238 RCTs and 12,781 patients. All agents resulted in significantly fewer patients with postoperative nausea and vomiting versus placebo in a NMA including 125 RCTs and 16,667 patients.

Conclusions

Granisetron plus dexamethasone was often the most effective antiemetic, with the number needed to treat ranging from two to nine.

Peer Review reports

Background

Postoperative nausea and/or vomiting can be defined as nausea and/or vomiting within 24 h of surgery [1, 2]. Between 20 % and 65 % of patients undergoing surgery experience postoperative nausea and/or vomiting [2, 3] and the anesthetic agents administered during the procedure have been identified as a contributing factor. Nausea and vomiting are associated with decreased quality of life and patient satisfaction [4, 5]. Vomiting can also cause complications such as aspiration pneumonia [6] and a longer hospital stay [7].

Serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists reduce nausea and vomiting by inhibiting vagal nerves in the central nervous system and intestinal mucosa [8]. These agents are recommended by clinical practice guidelines for patients undergoing surgery and at risk for nausea and/or vomiting [9, 10].

We were commissioned by Health Canada to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the comparative efficacy of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists.

Methods

Protocol

A protocol based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis for Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines was developed [11]. We revised our protocol using feedback from the research team and the research users, including Health Canada, a department of the federal government, who posed the original query. The final protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42013003564) and published in an open-access journal [12]. As described in our protocol [12], our initial objective was to include data for patients undergoing surgery and chemotherapy in the overall analysis for both safety and efficacy outcomes. However, due to the extensive number of studies that met the inclusion criteria, we subdivided the analysis and presentation of results in separate papers for chemotherapy and surgery, as well efficacy and safety outcomes [13]. This paper focuses on the efficacy of 5-HT3 receptor antagonist for patients undergoing surgery. Our methods are described briefly below.

Eligibility criteria

We included studies involving patients of any age undergoing any type of surgery and who were given a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist for nausea and/or vomiting (Additional file 1: Appendix 1). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, non-RCTs, interrupted time series, controlled before–after studies, and observational (cohort) studies were eligible for inclusion. We limited our systematic review to trials published in English due to resource constraints, and excluded studies that were identified as fraudulent or were retracted [14]. The primary outcome was the number of patients who vomited, and secondary outcomes were the number of patients with nausea and the number of patients with both postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

Information sources

Information sources included electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until January 11, 2013), trial protocol registries, and conference proceedings.

Study selection and data collection

Two reviewers screened the literature search results and potentially relevant full-text articles, independently. The same process was followed for data abstraction and methodological quality/risk of bias appraisal. We contacted authors as necessary; for example, to obtain additional information.

Appraisal of methodological quality and risk of bias

We used the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) risk-of-bias tool to assess risk of bias for experimental and quasi-experimental studies [15], and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) [16] for cohort studies.

Synthesis of included studies

A random-effects pairwise meta-analysis on the odds ratio (OR) scale was performed to combine studies addressing the same clinical outcome and treatment comparison. We decided to apply a random-effects model, as we expected methodological and clinical heterogeneity across the included studies that compared the same pairs of interventions. For studies with dichotomous outcomes where zero events were reported in one treatment arm, we added 0.5 to all cells. Between-study heterogeneity (τ2) was examined using the restricted maximum likelihood (REML) [17] method, and quantified using the I2 statistic [18]. The R 3.1.2 [19] and metafor package [20] were employed to conduct all pairwise meta-analyses.

For a connected network diagram, we conducted a random effects network meta-analysis to make inferences on the comparative efficacy of the 5-HT3 receptor antagonists [21]. Treatment nodes were selected by the clinicians and statisticians on the research team. If a study compared different doses of a particular intervention, we included only the recommended dose in the analysis [9, 10, 22–30].

Prior to conducting a network meta-analysis, we evaluated the transitivity assumption by examining the comparability of the distributions of potential treatment-effect modifiers across comparisons [31]. These included age (children versus adults), timing of administration (all time points versus during surgery), and risk of bias (all versus removing high risk of bias for randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding of outcome assessor). We evaluated transitivity in each network, by visually comparing the mode of the categorical potential effect modifiers across treatment comparisons [32]. We also assessed statistical inconsistency between different sources of evidence in the network using a global χ2 test derived from the design-by-treatment interaction model [21]. In the presence of statistically significant inconsistency, we applied the loop-specific approach [33, 34] to locally assess the network and identify the treatment comparisons responsible for inconsistency. In the network meta-analysis and design-by-treatment interaction models, we assumed common within-network heterogeneity, whereas in loop-specific method we assumed common within-loop heterogeneity. We assumed common heterogeneity across treatment comparisons since the included treatments are of the same nature and it was clinically reasonable to share a common heterogeneity parameter. In all approaches, we estimated the magnitude of between-study heterogeneity using the REML method [17]. Important heterogeneity and/or inconsistency would have been explored using network meta-regression analyses adjusting for potential effect modifiers. For each outcome, we carried out subgroup analyses using time of administration of antiemetics (all time periods versus during surgery) and age (all ages versus children), and sensitivity analyses excluding studies with high risk of incomplete outcome data bias. Although our primary analyses were restricted to RCTs only, as a secondary analysis, we included quasi-RCTs and non-RCTs to examine the robustness of the network meta-analysis results.

We present the network meta-analysis summary of treatment effects along with their 95 % confidence interval (CI) and 95 % predictive interval (PrI). The PrI captures both the uncertainty around the summary treatment effect and between-study variance, and shows the interval within which the treatment effect is expected to lie when a future study is conducted [35, 36]. To visually assess the presence of reporting bias (including publication bias and small-study effects), we used the comparison-adjusted funnel plot [32]. We also ranked the effectiveness of the 5-HT3 agonist receptors using the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve [37]. Network meta-analyses were conducted in Stata 13.0 [38] using the mvmeta command [39].

Results

Literature search

The literature search yielded 7,608 citations in total that met the search criteria, of which 450 full text articles met eligibility criteria for inclusion (444 primary publications and six companion reports reporting on nine studies, Fig. 1; Additional file 1: Appendix 2). Five unpublished conference abstracts were included in the review [40–44]. We excluded 77 studies because we suspected or confirmed that their results were fraudulent [14] and 535 studies from previous reviews that did not fulfill our eligibility criteria (reasons for exclusion presented in Additional file 1: Appendix 3).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study flow. Details the flow of information through the different phases of the review, mapping out the number of records identified, included and excluded, and the reasons for their exclusion

Full size image

Study and patient characteristics

The majority of the included studies had an RCT design (97 %) with a short duration of follow-up of 12 to 24 h (72 %). Most studies were published between 1995 and 2013 (94 %), and were mainly conducted in Asia (39 %), North America (27 %), or Europe (24 %) (Table 1, Additional file 1: Appendix 4).

Table 1 Study characteristics
Full size table

The 5-HT3 receptor antagonists we examined were ondansetron (0.1 − 48 mg/day; 76 %), granisetron (0.1 − 3 mg/day; 13 %), tropisetron (0.1 − 5 mg/day; 8 %), dolasetron (12.5 − 200 mg/day; 7 %), palonosetron (0.025 − 0.25 mg/day; 3 %), and ramosetron (0.1 − 0.6 mg/day; 2 %) (Table 1, Additional file 1: Appendix 5). We also included studies comparing combinations of 5-HT3 drugs administered concomitantly with other antiemetics, e.g., dexamethasone (2–20 mg/day; 16 %), butyrophenone (3 %), and benzamide (1 %).

Overall, 286 studies with dichotomous outcome data were included in our analyses. Studies with continuous outcome data and studies investigating the same 5-HT3 treatment in different doses were not included in the analysis.

The median study size was 118 (interquartile range, 75–180) patients, whereas most patients were women (72 %), and adults (59 %), with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status [45] of I or II (60 %) undergoing obstetrical and gynecological (30 %) surgery (Table 2, Additional file 1: Appendix 6). The included studies often did not report patients’ history of PONV (56 %). Similarly, a history of motion sickness was reported in only 33 % of the studies; comorbidities were rarely reported (5 %).

Table 2 Patient characteristics
Full size table

Methodological quality and risk of bias

Most of the included RCTs and quasi-RCTs had an unclear or high risk of bias on the following items: allocation concealment (59 %), baseline outcome characteristics (89 %), incomplete outcome data (60 %), and selective outcome reporting bias (97 %). When assessing potential for funding bias, we considered a study at a high or unclear risk of bias when it was funded by a private industry or when an author on the publication was employed by the company sponsoring the study, which occurred in 92 % of the RCTs and quasi-RCTs (Additional file 1: Appendices 7 and 8). Of the nine observational studies included in the analysis, eight used a somewhat representative sample, two did not describe ascertainment of exposure, all failed to demonstrate that the outcome was not present at the start of the study, six did not control for confounders, three did not describe the assessment of outcome, and all neglected to report follow-up (Additional file 1: Appendix 9). The visual inspection of the comparison adjusted funnel plots showed that there is no evidence for small-study effects and publication bias (Additional file 1: Appendix 10).

Vomiting

The network meta-analysis for vomiting included 238 RCTs with a total of 12,781 patients. The network geometry and included drugs can be found in Fig. 2a, whereas the statistically significant results are available in Table 3 and the overall results in Additional file 1: Appendix 11. The following treatment comparisons were statistically significant using both the CIs and PrIs: all agents (except for palonosetron plus dexamethasone and granisetron plus droperidol intravenous (IV)) versus placebo, ondansetron plus droperidol IV versus ondansetron, granisetron plus dexamethasone versus ondansetron, ondansetron plus dexamethasone versus dolasetron, ondansetron plus droperidol IV versus dolasetron, granisetron plus dexamethasone versus dolasetron, palonosetron plus dexamethasone versus ondansetron plus dexamethasone, palonosetron plus dexamethasone versus ondansetron plus droperidol IV, and palonosetron plus dexamethasone versus granisetron plus dexamethasone (Fig. 3). According to the SUCRA (Additional file 1: Appendix 12), the most effective agents for vomiting were ondansetron plus droperidol IV (85 % probability) and granisetron plus dexamethasone (84 % probability). The within-network heterogeneity in the network meta-analysis model was estimated at 0.15, and the evaluation of the network inconsistency using the design-by-treatment interaction model suggested that there was no evidence of statistical inconsistency (χ2 = 49.27, degrees of freedom = 44, P = 0.271, heterogeneity variance = 0.15).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Network geometry. Network meta-analysis diagrams for vomiting, nausea, and PONV. Nodes are weighted according to the number of patients included in the corresponding treatments, and edges are weighted according to the number of studies included in the respective comparisons

Full size image
Table 3 Statistically significant results of network meta-analysis for all time periods of drug administration
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Network meta-analysis results for vomiting. All treatments are compared to placebo. The black horizontal lines represent the 95 % confidence intervals (CI) of the summary treatment effects and red horizontal lines the 95 % predictive intervals (PrI). Results are presented on the odds ratio scale

Full size image

In order to account for the treatment effect modifier ‘age’ (Additional file 1: Appendix 13), a subgroup analysis was conducted for 46 RCTs involving a total of 1,830 children (Table 3, Additional file 1: Appendix 11). The following treatment comparisons were statistically significant for vomiting: ondansetron versus placebo, granisetron versus placebo, dolasetron versus placebo, tropisetron versus placebo, ondansetron plus dexamethasone versus placebo, ondansetron plus droperidol lV versus placebo, ondansetron plus metoclopramide IV versus placebo, granisetron plus dexamethasone versus placebo, ondansetron plus dexamethasone versus ondansetron, ondansetron plus dexamethasone versus dolasetron, ondansetron plus dexamethasone versus granisetron, and granisetron plus dexamethasone versus dolasetron (Additional file 1: Appendix 11). According to the SUCRA, the most effective agents for vomiting in children were ondansetron plus dexamethasone (83 % probability) and granisetron plus dexamethasone (82 % probability).

In order to account for the treatment effect modifier ‘timing of administration’ (Additional file 1: Appendix 14), a subgroup analysis was conducted for 220 RCTs involving 10,811 patients when the agents were administered during surgery (Additional file 1: Appendix 15). The results were the same as for the primary analysis, except that ondansetron plus droperidol IV was statistically superior to granisetron, and ondansetron plus droperidol IV and granisetron plus dexamethasone were superior to ramosetron. According to the SUCRA for this subgroup analysis, the most effective agents for vomiting were ondansetron plus droperidol IV (88 % probability) and granisetron plus dexamethasone (84 % probability).

In order to account for the treatment effect modifier ‘risk of bias’, a sensitivity analysis was conducted in which 11 RCTs were removed because of high risk of incomplete outcome data bias (Additional file 1: Appendix 15); the same results were observed, except granisetron plus dexamethasone was associated with significantly less vomiting compared with ramosetron (OR, 0.52;, 95 % CI, 0.27–0.99). In another sensitivity analysis, in which four cohort studies [46–49], two non-randomized controlled trials [50, 51], and one controlled before–after study [52] were added to the included studies, all of the results were the same, except that the differences between ondansetron plus dexamethasone and granisetron or ramosetron and between ondansetron plus metoclopramide IV and palonosetron plus dexamethasone were no longer statistically significant (Additional file 1: Appendix 15).

Nausea

The network meta-analysis for nausea included 195 RCTs with a total of 24,230 patients. The network geometry and included drugs can be found in Fig. 2b. We present the statistically significant treatment effect estimates derived through the network meta-analysis model in Table 3 and overall results in Additional file 1: Appendix 11. Using both the CIs and PrIs, the only treatment comparisons that were statistically significant for nausea were granisetron versus placebo (OR, 0.35; 95 % PrI, 0.13–0.91), ondansetron plus dexamethasone versus placebo (OR, 0.28; 95 % PrI, 0.10–0.76), palonosetron versus placebo (OR, 0.30; 95 % PrI, 0.10–0.89), ramosetron versus placebo (OR, 0.32; 95 % PrI, 0.12–0.86), ondansetron plus droperidol IV versus placebo (OR, 0.26; 95 % PrI, 0.09–0.80), granisetron plus dexamethasone versus placebo (OR, 0.20; 95 % PrI, 0.07–0.57), dolasetron plus droperidol IV versus placebo (OR, 0.19; 95 % PrI, 0.05–0.77), and granisetron plus droperidol IV versus placebo (OR, 0.21; 95 % PrI, 0.05–0.87) (Additional file 1: Appendices 11 and 16). According to the SUCRA (Additional file 1: Appendix 17), the most effective agents for nausea were granisetron plus dexamethasone (82 % probability) and dolasetron plus droperidol IV (78 % probability). The within-network heterogeneity in the network meta-analysis model was estimated at 0.24, and the design-by-treatment interaction model suggested that there was no statistically significant inconsistency (χ2 = 26.65, degrees of freedom = 41, P = 0.959, heterogeneity variance = 0.27).

In order to account for the treatment effect modifier ‘age’ (Additional file 1: Appendix 13), a subgroup analysis was conducted for 11 RCTs involving 1,326 children (Table 3, Additional file 1: Appendix 11). The following treatment comparisons were statistically significant for nausea: ondansetron versus placebo, dolasetron versus placebo, ondansetron plus dexamethasone versus placebo, and granisetron plus dexamethasone versus placebo (Additional file 1: Appendix 11). According to the SUCRA, the most effective agents for nausea in children were granisetron plus dexamethasone (84 % probability) and ondansetron plus droperidol IV (81 % probability).

In order to account for the treatment effect modifier ‘timing of administration’ (Additional file 1: Appendix 14), a subgroup analysis was conducted for 175 RCTs involving 21,844 patients when the agents were administered during surgery (Additional file 1: Appendix 18). All of the results were the same as for the primary analysis, except that the difference between tropisetron and ondansetron plus dexamethasone was no longer statistically significant. According to the SUCRA for this subgroup analysis, the most effective agents for nausea were granisetron plus dexamethasone (82 % probability) and dolasetron plus droperidol IV (77 % probability).

In order to account for the treatment effect modifier ‘risk of bias’, a sensitivity analysis was conducted in which 10 RCTs were removed because of high risk of incomplete outcome data bias [53–62], and the results were unchanged from the primary analysis (Additional file 1: Appendix 18). In another sensitivity analysis, in which two cohort studies [46, 49] and two non-randomized controlled trials [50, 51] were added to the included studies, all of the results were the same, except that the differences between palonosetron and dolasetron and between dolasetron plus dexamethasone and dolasetron were no longer statistically significant (Additional file 1: Appendix 18).

Postoperative nausea and vomiting

The network meta-analysis for PONV included 125 RCTs with 16,667 patients. The network geometry and included drugs can be found in Fig. 2c, statistically significant results are presented in Table 3, and the overall results in Additional file 1: Appendix 11. According to both the CIs and PrIs, the following treatment comparisons were statistically significant for PONV: all agents versus placebo except for tropisetron, granisetron plus dexamethasone versus ondansetron, and granisetron plus dexamethasone versus tropisetron (Additional file 1: Appendix 19). According to the SUCRA, the most effective agents for PONV were granisetron plus dexamethasone (86 % probability) and ondansetron plus droperidol IV (78 % probability; Additional file 1: Appendices 11 and 20). The within-network heterogeneity in the network meta-analysis model was estimated at 0.25, and the design-by-treatment interaction model suggested that there was no statistically significant inconsistency (χ2 = 26.58, degrees of freedom = 32, P = 0.737, heterogeneity variance = 0.26).

In order to account for the treatment effect modifier ‘age’ (Additional file 1: Appendix 13), a subgroup analysis was conducted for 14 RCTs involving a total of 2,394 children (Table 3, Additional file 1: Appendix 11). The following treatment comparisons were statistically significant: ondansetron versus placebo and ondansetron plus droperidol IV versus placebo. According to the SUCRA, the most effective agents for PONV in children were ondansetron plus droperidol IV (85 % probability) and ondansetron plus dexamethasone (59 % probability).

In order to account for the treatment effect modifier ‘timing of administration’ (Additional file 1: Appendix 14), a subgroup analysis was conducted for 116 RCTs involving 12,415 patients in which the agents were administered during surgery (Additional file 1: Appendix 21). All of the results were the same as for the primary analysis, except that ondansetron plus dexamethasone was statistically superior to ramosetron. According to the SUCRA for this subgroup analysis, the most effective agents for PONV were granisetron plus dexamethasone (84 % probability) and ondansetron plus droperidol IV (79 % probability).

In order to account for the treatment effect modifier ‘risk of bias’, a sensitivity analysis was conducted in which 10 RCTs were removed because of high risk of incomplete outcome data bias (Additional file 1: Appendix 21) [53–55, 58, 59, 61–65]; the results were unchanged from the primary analysis, except that the risk of PONV was significantly higher with tropisetron than with granisetron. In another sensitivity analysis, two cohort studies [46, 49] and three non-randomized controlled trials [50, 51, 66] were added to the included studies, and the same results were observed (Additional file 1: Appendix 11).

Discussion

Administration of most 5-HT3 antagonists led to significantly fewer patients experiencing nausea, vomiting, and PONV relative to placebo. However, some of the corresponding PrIs were not statistically significant, suggesting that the statistically significant treatment effects might change should a new study become available. For all age groups and across all outcomes, the most effective agents were granisetron plus dexamethasone. For adults, the most effective agents were ondansetron plus droperidol IV; and for children, the most effective agents were ondansetron plus dexamethasone.

We also conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis on the safety of these medications [13]. Our network meta-analysis results suggested that granisetron plus dexamethasone increases the risk of arrhythmia. However, a statistically significant increase in the risk of delirium was not observed in another network meta-analysis. In a meta-analysis including three studies for ondansetron versus placebo, no statistically significant results were observed for mortality. Only two studies reported prolongation of the QT interval; meta-analysis was not feasible because the studies compared different interventions.

Our network meta-analysis results for vomiting and PONV are similar to those of a previous network meta-analysis that examined only these two outcomes [67]. The only difference was that, unlike the current study, the earlier analysis showed that granisetron was significantly better than ondansetron and dolasetron for PONV. However, we included 378 studies involving a total of 68,167 patients that were not included in the earlier review. Although we are aware of other systematic reviews and meta-analyses of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists [14, 68], the previous researchers did not conduct a network meta-analysis, and therefore the results cannot be compared. Notably, because of our comprehensive literature search and broad eligibility criteria, we included 205 studies involving a total of 43,075 patients that were not included in those previous reviews (Additional file 1: Appendix 22).

The included studies were limited by having an unclear or high risk of bias on important components, including allocation concealment, selective outcome reporting bias, and potential for funding bias. Further, this systematic review process had some inherent limitations. Slight changes to the original protocol [12] were necessary, such as preparing a separate paper for patients undergoing chemotherapy, as well as one focused on the safety of these agents for patients with surgery [13]. Furthermore, it was assumed that the effects of the different doses and durations were identical across the treatments, and that they defined the same node they belong to. We are currently exploring these assumptions in another paper [69]. Although study designs above and beyond RCTs were included, the network meta-analysis was limited to the RCTs in order to increase the confidence of the results. We also were unable to present the results from the hundreds of meta-analyses conducted, as well as the raw data; these are available from the corresponding author upon request. Although the analyses were adjusted to account for the treatment effect modifiers (age, timing of administration, and risk of bias), the results might be influenced by effect modifiers that we were unaware of. However, the statistical evaluation of the transitivity assumption using the design-by-treatment interaction model suggested there was no evidence of inconsistency. Finally, 77 studies were excluded because they contained data known to be fraudulent or were retracted [14].

Conclusions

In conclusion, granisetron plus dexamethasone was often the most effective antiemetic across the effectiveness outcomes considered here, with the number needed to treat ranging from two to nine. A study that examines the administration of these agents at different dosages would provide further clarity to this important issue and our team is currently working on such an initiative [70].

Abbreviations

5-HT3:

Serotonin

CI:

Confidence interval

IV:

Intravenous.

OR:

Odds ratio

PONV:

Postoperative nausea and vomiting

PrI:

Predictive interval

RCTs:

Randomized control trials

REML:

Restricted maximum likelihood

SUCRA:

Surface under the cumulative ranking

References

  1. Habib AS, Chen YT, Taguchi A, Hu XH, Gan TJ. Postoperative nausea and vomiting following inpatient surgeries in a teaching hospital: a retrospective database analysis. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006;22:1093–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Sarin P, Urman RD, Ohno-Machado L. An improved model for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting in ambulatory surgery patients using physician-modifiable risk factors. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19:995–1002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Apfel CC, Laara E, Koivuranta M, Greim CA, Roewer N. A simplified risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting: conclusions from cross-validations between two centers. Anesthesiology. 1999;91:693–700.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ballatori E, Roila F, Ruggeri B, Betti M, Sarti S, Soru G, et al. The impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on health-related quality of life. Support Care Cancer. 2007;15:179–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Osoba D, Zee B, Warr D, Latreille J, Kaizer L, Pater J. Effect of postchemotherapy nausea and vomiting on health-related quality of life. The Quality of Life and Symptom Control Committees of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Support Care Cancer. 1997;5:307–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Apfel CC, Korttila K, Abdalla M, Kerger H, Turan A, Vedder I, et al. A factorial trial of six interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2441–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Chung F, Mezei G. Factors contributing to a prolonged stay after ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg. 1999;89:1352–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Constenla M. 5-HT3 receptor antagonists for prevention of late acute-onset emesis. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38:1683–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gan TJ, Meyer T, Apfel CC, Chung F, Davis PJ, Eubanks S, et al. Consensus guidelines for managing postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg. 2003;97:62–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McCracken G, Houston P, Lefebvre G. Guideline for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2008;30:600–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Antony J, Hemmelgarn B, Moher D, Hutton B, et al. Safety of serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in patients undergoing surgery and chemotherapy: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2013;2:46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Blondal E, Veroniki AA, Khan A, Vafaei A, et al. Comparative safety of serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2015; ahead of print.

  14. Carlisle JB. The analysis of 168 randomised controlled trials to test data integrity. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:521–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC). Suggested risk of bias criteria for EPOC reviews. EPOC Resources for review authors. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2014. http://epoc.cochrane.org/sites/epoc.cochrane.org/files/uploads/14%20Suggested%20risk%20of%20bias%20criteria%20for%20EPOC%20reviews%202013%2008%2012_0.pdf. Accessed: Jan 2015.

  16. Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm. Accessed: Jan 2015

  17. Raudenbush SW. Analyzing effect sizes: random-effects models. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC, editors. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis. 2nd ed. New York: The Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. p. 295–316.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org. Accessed Jan 2015.

  20. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36:1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. White IR, Barrett JK, Jackson D, Higgins J. Consistency and inconsistency in network meta‐analysis: model estimation using multivariate meta‐regression. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3:111–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen C-C, Lin C-S, Ko Y-P, Hung Y-C, Lao H-C, Hsu Y-W. Premedication with mirtazapine reduces preoperative anxiety and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg. 2008;106:109–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Omran HASA, Nasr DAM. Effect of premedication with mirtazapine versus ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting in breast surgery. Egyp J Anaesth. 2011;27:135–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Homesley HD, Hahne WF, McLees B, Heck K, Barrett RJ, Lentz SS, et al. Randomized comparison of the antiemetic efficacy of a serotonin type 3 receptor antagonist (MDL 72,222) with a high-dose metoclopramide regimen. Am J Clin Oncol. 1993;16:175–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gan TJ, Meyer TA, Apfel CC, Chung F, Davis PJ, Habib AS, et al. Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg. 2007;105:1615–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Golembiewski J, Chernin E, Chopra T. Prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2005;62:1247–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kovac AL. Prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Drugs. 2000;59:213–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yun MJ, Kim YH, Kim AR. Comparison of azasetron and ondansetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Yonsei Med J. 2010;51:88–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. MIMS. Ramosetron. http://www.mims.com/Thailand/drug/search/Ramosetron. Accessed: Jan 2015.

  30. MIMS. Azasetron. http://www.mims.com/Thailand/drug/search/Azasetron?AllFlag=ALL. Accessed: Jan 2015.

  31. Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3:80–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Chaimani A, Higgins JP, Mavridis D, Spyridonos P, Salanti G. Graphical tools for network meta-analysis in STATA. PLoS One. 2013;8:e76654.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Song F, Altman DG, Glenny A-M, Deeks JJ. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;326:472.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Veroniki AA, Vasiliadis HS, Higgins JP, Salanti G. Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:332–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Riley RD, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ. 2011;342:d549.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172:137–59.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JPA. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:163–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  39. White IR. Multivariate random-effects meta-regression: updates to mvmeta. Stata J. 2011;11:255–70.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Apfel CC, Candiotti K, Gan TJ, Ahmed R, Cox D. Palonosetron or ondansetron for rescue treatment of PONV after failed prophylaxis with ondansetron. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:S16.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gaynes B, Fiscella R, Larson B, Kiesling D. Intravenous ondansetron versus placebo for post-operative nausea and vomiting following cataract surgery. In: American Academy of Optometry. 1996: 170p.

  42. Gurha P, Kaur RD, Sanjay RR. Prophylactic intravenous palonosetron, granisetron and ondansetron in the prevention of post operative nausea and vomiting in laparoscopic surgeries. Br J Anaesth. vol. 108: Oxford Univ Press; 2012: 376–376.

  43. Samra SK, Williams B, Ciarralo C, Turner C, Smythe P. Lack of effect of droperidol, ondansetron, and dolasetron administration on PONV in a placebo controlled trial. Anesthesiology. 2003;99:A305.

    Google Scholar 

  44. White PF, Scuderi PE. Prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV): A dose-ranging study involving palonosetron, a potent 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:A703.

    Google Scholar 

  45. American Society of Anesthesiologists. ASA Physical Status Classification System. http://www.asahq.org/resources/clinical-information/asa-physical-status-classification-system. Accessed: Jan 2015.

  46. Chen YF, Yeh WL, Lee KH, Li MC, Yang TH, Huang HC, et al. Intravenous ondansetron as antiemetic prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting after shoulder arthroscopy. Chang Gung Med J. 2011;34:205–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Flynn BC, Nemergut EC. Postoperative nausea and vomiting and pain after transsphenoidal surgery: a review of 877 patients. Anesth Analg. 2006;103:162–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Shakeel M, Trinidade A, Al-Adhami A, Khan I, Supriya M, Kubba H. Retrospective review of three antiemetic regimens versus no therapy in the prevention of postoperative and vomiting following adenotonsillar surgery. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;41:35–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Walker JB. Efficacy of single-dose intravenous dolasetron versus ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Clin Ther. 2001;23:932–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Biedler A, Wermelt J, Kunitz O, Muller A, Wilhelm W, Dethling J, et al. A risk adapted approach reduces the overall institutional incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Can J Anaesth. 2004;51:13–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kim EJ, Ko JS, Kim CS, Lee SM, Choi DH. Combination of antiemetics for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in high-risk patients. J Korean Med Sci. 2007;22:878–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Wagner DS, Gauger V, Chiravuri D, Faust K. Ondansetron oral disintegrating tablets for the prevention of postoperative vomiting in children undergoing strabismus surgery. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2007;3:691–4.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Alexander R, Fennelly M. Comparison of ondansetron, metoclopramide and placebo as premedicants to reduce nausea and vomiting after major surgery. Anaesthesia. 1997;52:695–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Aouad MT, Siddik-Sayyid SM, Taha SK, Azar MS, Nasr VG, Hakki MA, et al. Haloperidol vs. ondansetron for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting following gynaecological surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2007;24:171–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Gan TJ, Gu J, Singla N, Chung F, Pearman MH, Bergese SD, et al. Rolapitant for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a prospective, double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:804–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. McKenzie R, Sharifi-Azad S, Dershwitz M, Miguel R, Joslyn AF, Tantisira B, et al. A randomized, double-blind pilot study examining the use of intravenous ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in female inpatients. J Clin Anesth. 1993;5:30–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Metaxari M, Papaioannou A, Petrou A, Chatzimichali A, Pharmakalidou E, Askitopoulou H. Antiemetic prophylaxis in thyroid surgery: a randomized, double-blind comparison of three 5-HT3 agents. J Anesth. 2011;25:356–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Munro FJ, Fisher S, Dickson U, Morton N. The addition of antiemetics to the morphine solution in patient controlled analgesia syringes used by children after an appendicectomy does not reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Paediatr Anaesth. 2002;12:600–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Sarvela PJ, Halonen PM, Soikkeli AI, Kainu JP, Korttila KT. Ondansetron and tropisetron do not prevent intraspinal morphine- and fentanyl-induced pruritus in elective cesarean delivery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2006;50:239–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Tang J, Watcha MF, White PF. A comparison of costs and efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol as prophylactic antiemetic therapy for elective outpatient gynecologic procedures. Anesth Analg. 1996;83:304–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Jain V, Mitra JK, Rath GP, Prabhakar H, Bithal PK, Dash HH. A randomized, double-blinded comparison of ondansetron, granisetron, and placebo for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting after supratentorial craniotomy. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2009;21:226–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Jokela R, Koivuranta M, Kangas-Saarela T, Purhonen S, Alahuhta S. Oral ondansetron, tropisetron or metoclopramide to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting: a comparison in high-risk patients undergoing thyroid or parathyroid surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2002;46:519–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Bacic A, Rumboldt Z, Gluncic I, Buklijas J. The impact of the menstrual cycle and ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res. 1998;18:153–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Iatrou CA, Dragoumanis CK, Vogiatzaki TD, Vretzakis GI, Simopoulos CE, Dimitriou VK. Prophylactic intravenous ondansetron and dolasetron in intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Anesth Analg. 2005;101:1516–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Ruiz de Adana J, Tobalina Bonis R, Garcia Galan F, Hernandez Matias A, Fernandez Luengas D, Ortega Deballon P, et al. Antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 1999;91:639–43.

  66. Manani G, Cantele P, Dona B, Meroni M, Tiberio I, Ceschin C, et al. Oculo-emetic and oculo-cardiac reflex in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomitus by diehydrobenzperidol and ondansetron after squint surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Italica. 1996;47:201–9.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Tang DH, Malone DC. A network meta-analysis on the efficacy of serotonin type 3 receptor antagonists used in adults during the first 24 h for postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis. Clin Ther. 2012;34:282–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Rawlinson A, Kitchingham N, Hart C, McMahon G, Ong SL, Khanna A. Mechanisms of reducing postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting: a systematic review of current techniques. Evid Based Med. 2012;17:75–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Tricco A, Veroniki A, Blondal E, Hamid J, Straus S. Incorporating dosages increases the relevance of network meta-analysis for decision-makers: A case example using data from a systematic review of serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in patients undergoing surgery. Toronto: Canadian Association of Pharmacy Technicians (CAPT) Conference; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Veroniki AA, Del Giovane C, Blondal E, Thavorn K, Straus SE, Tricco A. How to model different dose-effects in networks of interventions? 2015 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Symposium. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; 2015. http://www.slideshare.net/CADTH_Symposium/cadth-2015-d5-veroniki-modeling-dose-effects-in-nma-cadth-14-apr2015-v3. Accessed: Apr 2015.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This systematic review was funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research/Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (CIHR/DSEN). We thank Laure Perrier for conducting the literature searches, Becky Skidmore for peer-reviewing the literature search, and Drs. Maggie Chen and Joseph Beyene for providing feedback on conceptualization of the review. We also thank Vladi Struchkov, Vera Nincic, Roberta Cardoso, Christy Johnson, and Derek Roberts for screening some of the citations, and/or abstracting some of the data, and/or appraising quality for a few of the included studies. Finally, we thank Wing Hui for abstracting some of the data, Ana Guzman for formatting the manuscript, and Peggy Robinson for copyediting the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Toronto, ON, M5B 1W8, Canada

    Andrea C. Tricco, Charlene Soobiah, Erik Blondal, Areti A. Veroniki, Paul A. Khan, Afshin Vafaei, John Ivory, Lisa Strifler, Huda Ashoor, Heather MacDonald, Emily Reynen, Reid Robson, Joanne Ho, Carmen Ng, Jesmin Antony, Kelly Mrklas & Sharon E. Straus

  2. Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 6th floor, 155 College St, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M7, Canada

    Andrea C. Tricco

  3. Institute for Health Policy Management & Evaluation, University of Toronto, 4th Floor, 155 College St, Toronto, ON, M5T 3M6, Canada

    Charlene Soobiah

  4. Departments of Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, TRW Building, 3rd Floor, 3280 Hospital Drive, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada

    Kelly Mrklas & Brenda R. Hemmelgarn

  5. Clinical Epidemiology Program, Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 725 Parkdale Ave., Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada

    Brian Hutton & David Moher

  6. Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Toronto, 27 Kings College Circle, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A1, Canada

    Sharon E. Straus

Authors
  1. Andrea C. Tricco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charlene Soobiah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erik Blondal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Areti A. Veroniki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul A. Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Afshin Vafaei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. John Ivory
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lisa Strifler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Huda Ashoor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Heather MacDonald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Emily Reynen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Reid Robson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Joanne Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Carmen Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Jesmin Antony
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Kelly Mrklas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Brian Hutton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Brenda R. Hemmelgarn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. David Moher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Sharon E. Straus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharon E. Straus.

Additional information

Competing interests

This systematic review was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (CIHR/DSEN). ACT and BH are funded by a CIHR/DSEN New Investigator Award in Knowledge Synthesis. BRH receives funding from the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research. AAV is funded by the Banting Postdoctoral Fellowship Program from the CIHR. DM is funded by a University of Ottawa Research Chair. SES is funded by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Translation. RR owns stock in a company (GlaxoSmithKline Inc) that manufactures one of the interventions included in our study. All of the other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ contributions

ACT conceived, designed, and helped obtain funding for the study, guided the analysis, interpreted the results, and drafted the manuscript. CS coordinated the review, screened citations and full-text articles, abstracted data, appraised quality, cleaned the data, and edited the manuscript. EB, LS, and HA screened citations and full-text articles, abstracted data, appraised quality, cleaned the data, and edited the manuscript. AAV analyzed the data, interpreted the data, wrote the synthesis section, and edited the manuscript. PAK, AV, JI, HM, ER, RR, JH, CN, and KM screened citations and full-text articles, abstracted data, appraised quality, and edited the manuscript. JA provided methodological support and screened citations and full-text articles. BH, BRH, and DM helped conceive the study and edited the manuscript. SES conceived and designed the study, obtained the funding, interpreted the results, and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final paper and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Additional file

Additional file 1:

Appendices 1–22.

Rights and permissions

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tricco, A.C., Soobiah, C., Blondal, E. et al. Comparative efficacy of serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Med 13, 136 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0371-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0371-y

Keywords

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

Contact us