ArticleInternational journal of hematology-oncology and stem cell research2016
Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor Use in a Large Iranian Hospital: Comparison with American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Clinical Practice Guideline.
Article in International journal of hematology-oncology and stem cell research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- A questionnaire survey of pharmacists regarding the clinical practice guidelines for the appropriate use of granulocyte-colony stimulating factors.Journal of pharmaceutical health care and sciences · 2018Article
- Management of Febrile Neutropenia: A Description of Clinical and Microbiological Findings by Focusing on Risk Factors and Pitfalls.Journal of research in pharmacy practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGranulocyte Colony Stimulating Factors (GCSF) is high-cost agents commonly recommended for primary and secondary prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia. GCSFs have been shown to be beneficial in some patient subgroups, although they are probably overused in clinical settings. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines summarize current data on the appropriate use of CSFs. The aim of this study was to assess and audit the use of GCSF in a tertiary care center according to the recommendation of ASCO guideline. SUBJECTS AND
methodsA prospective observational study from November 2014 to June 2015 was performed on all patients prescribed with filgrastim in the large teaching hospital (Isfahan, Iran). Data was collected on demographics, indication, dosing regimen and duration of treatment, the Absolute Neutrophil Count (ANC) and patient outcome.
results91 patients were recorded over the period of the study. 63.7% of prescription complied with the ASCO guideline. Febrile neutropenia post chemotherapy/radiotherapy was the most common appropriate indication (29.3%) followed by primary prophylaxis (25.8%). Fourteen (32%) patients showed ANC recovery in 1-3 days and 16 (37%) within 4-7 days. Ten patients (23%) showed no recovery. The overall mortality was 8 (8.8%) patients.
conclusionThis study revealed that at least one-third of prescribed GCSF was not in accordance with ASCO guideline. Considering the high cost of GCSF in our country and limitation of our resources, we proposed cost-effectiveness studies on GCSF treatment and also the development of a national guideline for optimizing GCSF use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27252808PMC4888153W2336768402What 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.