Skip to main content
. 2026 May 7;11(5):aakag044. doi: 10.1093/esj/aakag044

Figure 12.

Pooled results show no significant difference in SAP incidence compared with no antiemetics, with risk of bias ranging from low to some concerns across studies.

Forest plot and risk-of-bias assessment of antiemetics for SAP incidence. aConfidence interval (CI) calculated with Wald-type method. bTau2 calculated with DerSimonian and Laird method. Risk of bias legend: (A) bias arising from the randomization process, (B) bias due to deviations from intended interventions, (C) bias due to missing outcome data, (D) bias in measurement of the outcome, (E) bias in selection of the reported result, (F) overall bias. Inline graphic High, Inline graphic some concerns, Inline graphic low, Inline graphic No information.