Cost-efficacy analysis of ondansetron regimens for control of emesis induced by noncisplatin, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cost efficacy of various ondansetron regimens for the control of emesis induced by noncisplatin, moderately emetogenic chemotherapy was examined from a hospital perspective. Previous cost-efficacy analyses of ondansetron provide limited insight into the economic impact of ondansetron when used with moderately emetogenic chemotherapies. Clinical efficacy results of trials that used ondansetron to control emesis were retrieved from the biomedical literature published between January 1966 and December 2000. Only direct antiemetic treatment costs were considered. A total of 55 trials were analyzed, with a total of 22 regimens identified. Costs of antiemetic treatments were calculated by multiplying the milligrams of each product by the cost per milligram. For each injectable dose, the average cost of an administration device was Can$1.28. Pharmacy time required for preparing an i.v. dose was 2.5 minutes, at an average hourly rate of Can$25. Nursing time to administer each i.v. dose was estimated at one minute at an average rate of Can$23 per hour. The efficacy rate of the 22 regimens varied between 24.2% and 90.4%, while the cost varied from Can$20 to Can$413. A cost-efficacy analysis of ondansetron regimens for control of emesis caused by noncisplatin, moderately emetic antineoplastic treatment revealed regimens that should be avoided as well as regimens that are, in comparison, at least as efficacious and less expensive. The analysis supported the concomitant use of a corticosteroid, twice-daily administration of ondansetron, and limitation of ondansetron administration to a period not exceeding four days.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".