ArticleIndian journal of hematology & blood transfusion : an official journal of Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion2007
Cefepime versus ceftazidime as empirical therapy for fever in neutropenic patients with haematological malignancies.
Article in Indian journal of hematology & blood transfusion : an official journal of Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cefepime and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2026Pooled it
- Anti-pseudomonal beta-lactams for the initial, empirical, treatment of febrile neutropenia: comparison of beta-lactams.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2010Pooled it
- The Dose-Dependent Efficacy of Cefepime in the Empiric Management of Febrile Neutropenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Open forum infectious diseases · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An open randomized comparative study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of Cefepime (2 gm iv. 8 hr.) vs. ceftazidime (2 gm iv. every 8 hr.) in empirical therapy of febrile neutropenic patients. A total of 40 eligible febrile episodes were randomized to be treated with study regimen. Twenty febrile episodes were treated with cefepime and 20 were treated with ceftazidime. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, height, underlying neoplasm, number of pretherapy neutrophils, duration of neutropenia. The overall therapeutic success rate of cetepime group (60%) was comparable to that of ceftazidime group (55%). The results of this study suggest that cefepime is an effective and safe agent in empirical therapy of febrile episode in neutropenic patient and its efficacy is comparable with that of ceftazidime.
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.