Suchergebnisse
Filter
11 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
SSRN
Air Pollution Impacts on Health Care Expenditure in China: Evidence and Mechanisms
SSRN
Effect of Temperature on Mental Health: Evidence and Mechanisms from China
In: CHIECO-D-22-00002
SSRN
Health and Health Inequality During the Great Recession: Evidence from the PSID
In: IZA Discussion Paper No. 10808
SSRN
Effects of temperature on mental health: Evidence and mechanisms from China
In: China economic review, Band 79, S. 101953
ISSN: 1043-951X
The effect of air pollution on body weight and obesity: Evidence from China
In: Journal of development economics, Band 145, S. 102461
ISSN: 0304-3878
SSRN
Working paper
The Effect of Air Pollution on Body Weight and Obesity: Evidence from China
In: IZA Discussion Paper No. 12296
SSRN
Working paper
Structure Identification and Toxicity Evaluation of One Newly-Discovered Dechlorinated Photoproducts of Chlorpyrifos
In: CHEM99421
SSRN
Efficacy and safety of ramosetron versus ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting after general anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
In: info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.2147/DDDT.S80407
Chengjie Gao, Bo Li, Lufeng Xu, Fubin Lv, Guimao Cao, Huixia Wang, Fei Wang, Guanghan WuDepartment of Anesthesiology, General Hospital of Jinan Military Command, Jinan, People's Republic of ChinaBackground: Postoperative nausea and vomiting is a common side effect of general anesthesia. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of ramosetron versus ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting using the most recently published randomized controlled clinical studies.Methods: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of ramosetron and ondansetron. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK). Dichotomous outcomes are presented as the relative risk (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).Results: A total of 898 patients from nine selected studies were treated with antiemetics after surgery, including 450 patients who received ondansetron 4 mg and 448 patients who received ramosetron 0.3 mg. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regard to prevention of postoperative nausea (PON) during different time periods in the 48 hours after surgery. When comparing the efficacy of ramosetron and ondansetron in the prevention of postoperative vomiting (POV), at various time intervals in the 24 hours after surgery, ramosetron was significantly more efficient than ondansetron: 0–6 hours (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.24–0.92; P=0.03), 0–24 hours (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52–1.00; P=0.05), and 6–24 hours (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.31–0.84; P=0.008). At other time periods between 24 and 48 hours after surgery, ramosetron did not show better efficacy than ondansetron. When comparing the safety profiles of ramosetron and ondansetron, fewer side effects were recorded in the ramosetron group (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.47–0.91; P=0.01).Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that ramosetron was more effective than ondansetron in the prevention of early POV (0–24 hours) with fewer recorded side effects. However, our study did not reveal any statistically significant differences in efficacy between ramosetron and ondansetron in the prevention of PON or late POV (at 24–48 hours).Keywords: ramosetron, ondansetron, postoperative nausea and vomiting, general anesthesia, meta-analysis
BASE
Adsorption characteristics and mechanisms of bisphenol A on novel nitrogen-modified biochar derived from waste masks and biomass
In: Environmental science and pollution research: ESPR, Band 31, Heft 39, S. 51237-51252
ISSN: 1614-7499