Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27252808›Full record

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.

Sarah Mousavi, Mina Dadpoor, Farzaneh Ashrafi

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sarah MousaviDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacy Practice, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Mina DadpoorPharm D Student, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Farzaneh AshrafiHematology and Medical Oncology Department, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran; Acquired Immunodeficiency Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical auditDrug utilization reviewGranulocyte colony stimulating factor

Identifiers

PMID27252808
PMCPMC4888153
OpenAlexW2336768402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.