The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison of the NK1 Antagonist, Aprepitant, Versus Ondansetron for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antiemetics currently in use are not totally effective. Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists are a new class of antiemetic that have shown promise for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. This is the first study evaluating the efficacy and tolerability of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, aprepitant, for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 805 patients receiving general anesthesia for open abdominal surgery to a preoperative dose of aprepitant 40 mg orally, aprepitant 125 mg orally, or ondansetron 4 mg IV. Vomiting, nausea, and use of rescue therapy were assessed over 48 h after surgery. Treatments were compared using logistic regression. RESULTS: Incidence rates for the primary end point (complete response [no vomiting and no use of rescue] over 0-24 h after surgery, tested for superiority of aprepitant) were not different across groups (45% with aprepitant 40 mg, 43% with aprepitant 125 mg, and 42% with ondansetron). The incidence of no vomiting (0-24 h) was higher with aprepitant 40 mg (90%) and aprepitant 125 mg (95%) versus ondansetron (74%) (P < 0.001 for both comparisons), although between-treatment use of rescue and nausea control was not different. Both aprepitant doses also had higher incidences of no vomiting over 0-48 h (P < 0.001). No statistically significant differences were seen among the side effect profiles of the treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Aprepitant was superior to ondansetron for prevention of vomiting in the first 24 and 48 h, but no significant differences were observed between aprepitant and ondansetron for nausea control, use of rescue, or complete response.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Apfel, C. C., Läärä, E., Koivuranta, M., Greim, C.-A., & Roewer, N. (1999) · Anesthesiology · doi:10.1097/00000542-199909000-00022 · Cited by 2,121
Self-citationLeslie, R. A. (1985) · Neurochemistry International · doi:10.1016/0197-0186(85)90106-8 · Cited by 174
Cited by
Pasricha, P. J., Yates, K. P., Sarosiek, I., McCallum, R. W., Abell, T. L., Koch, K. L., Nguyen, L. A. B., Snape, W. J., Hasler, W. L., Clarke, J. O., et al. (2018) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.08.033 · Cited by 143
Hargreaves, R., Ferreira, J. C. A., Hughes, D., Brands, J., Hale, J., Mattson, B., & Mills, S. (2011) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.05961.x · Cited by 102
Metadata
- Authors
- Gan, T. J., Apfel, C. C., Kovac, A., Philip, B. K., Singla, N., Minkowitz, H., Habib, A. S., Knighton, J., Carides, A. D., Zhang, H., Horgan, K. J., Evans, J. K., & Lawson, F. C.
- Venue
- Anesthesia & Analgesia
- Published
- 2007-05
- Volume
- 104
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1082-1089
- ISSN
- 0003-2999 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2013976105
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 15.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: A Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison of the NK1 Antagonist, Aprepitant, Versus Ondansetron for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1213/01.ane.0000263277.35140.a3
- The paper
- Gan, T. J., Apfel, C. C., Kovac, A., Philip, B. K., Singla, N., Minkowitz, H., Habib, A. S., Knighton, J., Carides, A. D., Zhang, H., Horgan, K. J., Evans, J. K., & Lawson, F. C. (2007). A Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison of the NK1 Antagonist, Aprepitant, Versus Ondansetron for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting. Anesthesia & Analgesia. https://doi.org/10.1213/01.ane.0000263277.35140.a3
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.