MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099398994 · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-2-46

Safety of serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists in patients undergoing surgery and chemotherapy: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

2013· review· en· W2099398994 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Andrea C. Tricco, Charlene Soobiah, Jesmin Antony, Brenda R. Hemmelgarn, David Moher, Brian Hutton, Sharon E. Straus

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNausea and vomiting management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanada Research ChairsOttawa HospitalUniversity of CalgarySt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicineAntiemeticNauseaVomitingMeta-analysisPostoperative nausea and vomitingPlaceboMEDLINEObservational studySystematic reviewIntensive care medicineChemotherapy-induced nausea and vomitingInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Serotonin (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are a class of antiemetic medications often used to prevent nausea and vomiting among patients undergoing chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery. However, recent studies suggest that these agents might be associated with increased cardiac harm. To examine this further, we are proposing to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis on the comparative safety of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists among patients undergoing chemotherapy or surgery. METHODS/DESIGN: Studies reporting one or more safety outcomes of interest for 5-HT3 receptor antagonists compared with each other, placebo, and/or other anti-emetic agents (for example, benzamides, phenothiazines, butyrophenones, antihistamines, and anticholinergics) among children and adult patients undergoing surgery or chemotherapy will be included. Our primary outcome of interest is arrhythmia. Our secondary outcomes include cardiac death, QT prolongation, PR prolongation, all-cause mortality, nausea, and vomiting. We will include experimental studies, quasi-experimental studies (namely controlled before-after and interrupted time series), and observational studies (namely cohort studies). We will not limit inclusion by publication status, time period, duration of follow-up or language of dissemination.Electronic databases (for example, MEDLINE, EMBASE) will be searched from inception onwards. These main searches will be supplemented by searching for difficult to locate and unpublished studies, such as dissertations, and governmental reports. The eligibility criteria will be pilot-tested and subsequently used to screen the literature search results by two reviewers in duplicate. A similar process will be followed for full-text screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias/methodological quality appraisal. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool will be used to appraise experimental and quasi-experimental studies, and cohort studies will be assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. If the data allows, random effects meta-analysis and a network (that is, mixed treatment comparisons) meta-analysis will be conducted. All analyses will be conducted separately for different study designs, patient populations (for example, children and adults), and reason for administering 5-HT3 receptor antagonists (for example, post-surgery and chemotherapy). DISCUSSION: Our results will help inform patients, clinicians, and health policy-makers about the potential safety concerns, as well as the comparative safety, of using these antiemetic agents. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registry number:CRD42013003564.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.062
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.062
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.029
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicNausea and vomiting managementFrench-language works237,207