Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 4 complete abstracts (793 words), 10 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
A competitive serotonin type 3 receptor antagonist. It is effective in the treatment of nausea and vomiting caused by cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs, including cisplatin, and has reported anxiolytic and neuroleptic properties.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: 4H-Carbazol-4-one, 1,2,3,9-tetrahydro-9-methyl-3-((2-methyl-1H-imidazol-1-yl)methyl)-; Ondansetron, (+,-)-Isomer; GR38032F; GR-38032F; GR 38032F; Ondansetron Hydrochloride; Hydrochloride, Ondansetron; Ondansetron Monohydrochloride.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Imidazoles; Carbazoles
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 3,512 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Ondansetron” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 435 of them (12.4%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is through 1999 with 1,322 records.
Reviews account for 345 records (9.8%) and meta-analyses for 100. Randomized controlled trials number 1,074 (30.6%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up a comparatively large share of this literature, which means many treatment questions have been tested directly.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 1,322 |
| 2000-2009 | 849 |
| 2010-2019 | 906 |
| 2020 onward | 435 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 345 | 9.8% |
| Meta-analyses | 100 | 2.8% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 1,074 | 30.6% |
Method: PubMed query "Ondansetron"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.
Reading the evidence in drugs and chemicals
Studies of a chemical or drug can answer very different questions: what it is and how it behaves in cells and animals, how the body handles it, and whether it changes outcomes in people. Laboratory and animal findings often do not carry over to patients, and observational studies of exposures are confounded by who uses a substance and why. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to use, avoid, start or stop any substance or medicine; talk to a qualified clinician or pharmacist about your own situation. Check the dose, the species, the comparison group and whether a patient-relevant outcome was measured.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
Effective cross-over to granisetron after failure to ondansetron, a randomized double blind study in patients failing ondansetron plus dexamethasone during the first 24 hours following highly emetogenic chemotherapy [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- In view of the similarity in chemical structure of the available 5HT(3)-receptor antagonists it is assumed, whilst these agents all act at the same receptor, that failure to one agent would predict subsequent failure to all 5HT(3)-receptor antagonists.
- Closing excerpt
- These results indicate that there is no complete cross-resistance between 5HT(3)-receptor antagonists, and that patients who have acute protection failure on one 5HT(3)-receptor antagonist should be offered cross-over to another 5HT(3)-receptor antagonist.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (175 words)
In view of the similarity in chemical structure of the available 5HT(3)-receptor antagonists it is assumed, whilst these agents all act at the same receptor, that failure to one agent would predict subsequent failure to all 5HT(3)-receptor antagonists. We conducted a randomized double blind trial of granisetron 3 mg plus dexamethasone 10 mg versus continued treatment with ondansetron 8 mg plus dexamethasone 10 mg in patients with protection failure on ondansetron 8 mg plus dexamethasone 10 mg during the first 24 hours following highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Of 40 eligible patients, 21 received ondansetron + dexamethasone and 19 received granisetron + dexamethasone. We found a significant benefit from crossing-over to granisetron after failure on ondansetron. Of the 19 patients who crossed over to granisetron, 9 patients obtained complete protection, whereas this was observed in 1 of the 21 patients continuing ondansetron, P = 0.005. These results indicate that there is no complete cross-resistance between 5HT(3)-receptor antagonists, and that patients who have acute protection failure on one 5HT(3)-receptor antagonist should be offered cross-over to another 5HT(3)-receptor antagonist.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 11710819 · DOI · PMC2375154
Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Newly developed neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R) antagonists have been recently tried in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).
- Closing excerpt
- More large-sampled high-quality RCTs are needed.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (259 words)
Newly developed neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1R) antagonists have been recently tried in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to explore whether NK-1R antagonists were effective in preventing PONV.The PRISMA statement guidelines were followed. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that tested the preventive effects of NK-1R antagonists on PONV were identified by searching EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library databases followed by screening. Data extraction was performed using a predefined form and trial quality was assessed using a modified Jadad scale. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of PONV. Meta-analysis was performed for studies using similar interventions. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the anti-vomiting effects of placebo, ondansetron, and aprepitant at different doses.Fourteen RCTs were included. Meta-analysis found that 80 mg of aprepitant could reduce the incidences of nausea (3 RCTs with 224 patients, pooled risk ratio (RR) = 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.47 to 0.75), and vomiting (3 RCTs with 224 patients, pooled RR = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.04 to 0.37) compared with placebo. Neither 40 mg (3 RCTs with 1171 patients, RR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.37 to 0.60) nor 125 mg (2 RCTs with 1058 patients, RR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.13 to 0.78) of aprepitant showed superiority over 4 mg of ondansetron in preventing postoperative vomiting. NMA did not find a dose-dependent effect of aprepitant on preventing postoperative vomiting.Limited data suggested that NK-1R antagonists, especially aprepitant were effective in preventing PONV compared with placebo. More large-sampled high-quality RCTs are needed.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 25984662 · DOI · PMC4602579
Ondasetron versus haloperidol for the treatment of postcardiotomy delirium: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- BackgroundTo investigate the controlling efficacy of ondasetron and haloperidol in regard to the postcardiotomy delirium.
- Closing excerpt
- As, in addition, ondasetron bares milder side-effects, we believe this could be the agent of choice in patients developing postcardiotomy delirium in the future.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (137 words)
BackgroundTo investigate the controlling efficacy of ondasetron and haloperidol in regard to the postcardiotomy delirium.MethodsWe included in this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study 80 patients who developed delirium after heart surgery with the application of heart lung-machine. The patients were divided into two, equally-sized groups, which on detection of delirium received ondasetron 8 mg iv or haloperidol 5 mg iv respectively. The statistical analysis compared the baseline and demographic characteristics of the two groups (age, gender, comorbidities, years of education, type of surgery etc.).ResultsBoth ondasetron and haloperidol had very good delirium controlling effects, without statistically significant differences. DISCUSSION-CONCLUSIONS: Ondasetron and haloperidol are efficient agents as far as the treatment of postcardiotomy delirium is concerned. As, in addition, ondasetron bares milder side-effects, we believe this could be the agent of choice in patients developing postcardiotomy delirium in the future.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 22436170 · DOI · PMC3378452
Effect of ondansetron on QTc interval prolongation in healthy pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis [4]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to describe electrocardiographic changes in healthy pediatric patients receiving low-dose ondansetron and to determine whether these changes are associated with the occurrence of cardiac dysrhythmias.
- Closing excerpt
- However, it is highly unlikely that these changes result in cardiac dysrhythmia, suggesting no relationship between low-dose ondansetron use and an increased risk of dysrhythmia in healthy pediatric patients.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (222 words)
ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to describe electrocardiographic changes in healthy pediatric patients receiving low-dose ondansetron and to determine whether these changes are associated with the occurrence of cardiac dysrhythmias.Data sourceThe search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, SciELO, and the Cochrane databases, selecting articles published until September 2024. The primary outcome was the mean change in the corrected QT interval (QTc) interval. The mean variation of the Tp-e interval and the incidence of significant QTc prolongation were assessed as secondary outcomes.Data synthesisFour studies were included in this review, including 231 healthy pediatric patients who received ondansetron (IV or oral). Most were male, aged 0.6-18 years. The mean IV ondansetron dose ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 mg/kg, while the mean oral dose was 0.18 mg/kg, with a maximum dose of 8 mg. The mean change in the QTc interval was 4.7 ms (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.48.1), and in the Tp-e interval was 7.7 ms (95%CI 2.0-13.5). The risk of a significant QTc prolongation was 2.5% (95%CI -0.009-0.059). No dysrhythmia was observed in the studies.ConclusionsThere was a statistically significant increase in QTc and Tp-e intervals following ondansetron administration in healthy pediatric patients. However, it is highly unlikely that these changes result in cardiac dysrhythmia, suggesting no relationship between low-dose ondansetron use and an increased risk of dysrhythmia in healthy pediatric patients.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 41880414 · DOI · PMC13008241
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Efficacy, dose-response, and safety of ondansetron in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials [5]
- Research article Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guideline for CYP2D6 genotype and use of ondansetron and tropisetron [6]
- Research article Ondansetron clinical pharmacokinetics [7]
- Research article Ondansetron. A review of its pharmacology and preliminary clinical findings in novel applications [8]
- Research article Ondansetron: a selective 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist and its applications in CNS-related disorders [9]
- Research article A quantitative systematic review of ondansetron in treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting [10]
References
- de Wit R, de Boer AC, vd Linden GH, Stoter G, Sparreboom A, Verweij J. Effective cross-over to granisetron after failure to ondansetron, a randomized double blind study in patients failing ondansetron plus dexamethasone during the first 24 hours following highly emetogenic chemotherapy. . 2001. PMID 11710819 · DOI · PMC2375154
- Liu M, Zhang H, Du BX, Xu FY, Zou Z, Sui B, et al.. Neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. . 2015. PMID 25984662 · DOI · PMC4602579
- Tagarakis GI, Voucharas C, Tsolaki F, Daskalopoulos ME, Papaliagkas V, Parisis C, et al.. Ondasetron versus haloperidol for the treatment of postcardiotomy delirium: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study. . 2012. PMID 22436170 · DOI · PMC3378452
- Carneiro IMC, Castelo Branco PES, Franco AHS, Oliveira AP, Aguiar AMA. Effect of ondansetron on QTc interval prolongation in healthy pediatric patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. . 2026. PMID 41880414 · DOI · PMC13008241
- Tramèr MR, Reynolds DJ, Moore RA, McQuay HJ. Efficacy, dose-response, and safety of ondansetron in prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled trials. Anesthesiology. 1997. PMID 9416710 · DOI
- Bell GC, Caudle KE, Whirl-Carrillo M, Gordon RJ, Hikino K, Prows CA, et al.. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guideline for CYP2D6 genotype and use of ondansetron and tropisetron. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2017. PMID 28002639 · DOI · PMC5479760
- Roila F, Del Favero A. Ondansetron clinical pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1995. PMID 7586904 · DOI
- Wilde MI, Markham A. Ondansetron. A review of its pharmacology and preliminary clinical findings in novel applications. Drugs. 1996. PMID 9118822 · DOI
- Ye JH, Ponnudurai R, Schaefer R. Ondansetron: a selective 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist and its applications in CNS-related disorders. CNS Drug Rev. 2001. PMID 11474424 · DOI · PMC6741689
- Tramèr MR, Moore RA, Reynolds DJ, McQuay HJ. A quantitative systematic review of ondansetron in treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting. BMJ. 1997. PMID 9133892 · DOI · PMC2126477
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-10-31; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-10-31.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.