ArticleBritish journal of cancer2005
Management of febrile neutropenia in the United Kingdom: time for a national trial?
Article in British journal of cancer, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aminoglycoside use in paediatric febrile neutropenia - Outcomes from a nationwide prospective cohort study.PloS one · 2020Article
- A prospective study of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia in the South West London Cancer Network. Interpretation of study results in light of NCAG/NCEPOD findings.British journal of cancer · 2011Article
- Clinical practice patterns of managing low-risk adult febrile neutropenia during cancer chemotherapy in the USA.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2008Article
- Variation in policies for the management of febrile neutropenia in United Kingdom Children's Cancer Study Group centres.Archives of disease in childhood · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent advances in febrile neutropenia (FN) have highlighted the value of risk stratification and the evolving role of oral antibiotics with early hospital discharge in low-risk patients. The aim of this study was to survey whether these advances have been translated into routine clinical practice in the UK. Questionnaires were sent to cancer clinicians across the UK to determine clinicians' routine management of FN, including use of risk stratification, antibiotic regimen and criteria for hospital discharge. In all, 128 clinicians responded, representing 50 cancer departments (83%). Only 38% of respondents stratify patients according to risk and with substantial variation in the criteria defining 'low-risk'. Furthermore, only 22% of clinicians use oral antibiotics as first-line treatment in any patients with FN, but this was significantly greater among clinicians who do compared to those who do not stratify patients by risk, 51 vs 4% (P<0.0001). These findings suggest a slow and/or cautious introduction of newer strategies for the management of low-risk FN in the UK. However, 84% of respondents confirmed their willingness to participate in a trial of oral antibiotics combined with early discharge in low-risk FN.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.