Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 470

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Incidence of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and emesis after modern antiemetics: Perception versus reality

Open access
Grunberg, Steven M., Deuson, Robert R., Mavros, Panagiotis, Geling, Olga, Hansen, Mogens, Cruciani, Giorgio, Daniele, Bruno, De Pouvourville, Gerard, Rubenstein, Edward B., Daugaard, Gedske·2004·Cancer

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The authors determined the incidence of acute and delayed chemotherapy‐induced nausea and emesis (vomiting) (CINV) among patients receiving highly (HEC) or moderately (MEC) emetogenic chemotherapy. They also assessed whether physicians and nurses accurately recognized the incidence of acute and delayed CINV in their own practices. METHODS: A prospective, observational study of adult patients receiving HEC or MEC for the first time was performed. Before patient enrollment, medical oncologists and oncology nurses estimated the incidence of acute (Day 1) and delayed (Days 2–5) CINV after first administration of HEC and MEC in their own practices. Eligible patients from their practices then completed a 6‐day diary including emetic episodes, nausea assessment, and antiemetic medication use. Observed incidence rates of acute and delayed CINV were compared with physician/nurse predictions. RESULTS: Twenty‐four physicians and nurses and 298 eligible patients (67 receiving HEC and 231 receiving MEC) were recruited from 14 oncology practices in 6 countries. Greater than 35% of patients overall experienced acute nausea, whereas 13% experienced acute emesis. Delayed nausea and emesis were observed in 60% and 50% of HEC patients, respectively, and in 52% and 28% of MEC patients, respectively. Delayed symptoms appeared without acute symptoms after HEC (emesis, 38%; nausea, 33%) and MEC (emesis, 19%; nausea, 21%). Physicians and nurses accurately predicted the incidence of acute CINV but underestimated the incidence of delayed nausea and emesis after HEC by 21 and 28 percentage points, respectively, and delayed nausea after MEC by 28 percentage points. Greater than 75% of physicians and nurses underestimated the incidence of delayed CINV after both HEC and MEC. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians and nurses markedly underestimated the incidence of delayed nausea and emesis after both HEC and MEC. Delayed nausea and emesis, which may appear even in the absence of acute nausea and emesis, remain important targets for improved therapeutic intervention. Cancer 2004. © 2004 American Cancer Society.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.20230

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 470

Metadata

Authors
Grunberg, S. M., Deuson, R. R., Mavros, P., Geling, O., Hansen, M., Cruciani, G., Daniele, B., De Pouvourville, G., Rubenstein, E. B., & Daugaard, G.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-04-12
Volume
100
Issue
10
Pages
2261-2668
ISSN
  • 0008-543X (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0142
OpenAlex
W1561023139
Cited by
470
References
0
FWCI
19.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Incidence of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and emesis after modern antiemetics: Perception versus reality. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/cncr.20230
The paper
Grunberg, S. M., Deuson, R. R., Mavros, P., Geling, O., Hansen, M., Cruciani, G., Daniele, B., De Pouvourville, G., Rubenstein, E. B., & Daugaard, G. (2004). Incidence of chemotherapy‐induced nausea and emesis after modern antiemetics: Perception versus reality. Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20230

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.