ArticlePloS one2018
Validation of the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) model in febrile neutropenia patients visiting the emergency department. Can it guide emergency physicians to a reasonable decision on outpatient vs. inpatient treatment?
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Review of Interventions to Optimize Emergency Department Care of Patients with Cancer.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2026Pooled it
- In-hospital mortality prognostication for cancer patients with febrile neutropenia.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Machine Learning for Prediction of High-Risk Hospitalizations in Lymphoma Patients: A Danish Population-Based Study.European journal of haematology · 2025Article
- Unravelling the Proteinopathic Engagement of α-Synuclein, Tau, and Amyloid Beta in Parkinson's Disease: Mitochondrial Collapse as a Pivotal Driver of Neurodegeneration.Neurochemical research · 2025Review
- 2024 update of the AGIHO guideline on diagnosis and empirical treatment of fever of unknown origin (FUO) in adult neutropenic patients with solid tumours and hematological malignancies.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2025Review
- Remote Monitoring of Patients With Hematologic Malignancies at High Risk of Febrile Neutropenia: Exploratory Study.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Usefulness analysis of the 2018 ASCO/IDSA guideline for outpatient management of fever and neutropenia in adults treated for malignancy.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the clinical Index of Stable febrile neutropenia risk stratification system for management of febrile neutropenia in gynecologic oncology patients.Gynecologic oncology reports · 2021Article
- Common misconceptions in the prognostic evaluation of clinically stable patients with febrile neutropenia and solid tumors.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2019Article
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
Advances in oncology have enabled physicians to treat low-risk febrile neutropenia (FN) in outpatient settings. This study was aimed to explore the usefulness of the CISNE model and identify better triage in the emergency setting. This is a retrospective cohort study on 400 adult FN patients presenting to the Emergency Department of National Cancer Center, Korea from January 2010 to December 2016. All had been treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy for solid tumors in the previous 30 days. The primary outcome was the frequency of any serious complications during the duration of illness. Apparently stable patients numbered 299 (74.8%) of 400, and the remainder comprised clinically unstable patients. The stable patients fell into three cohorts according to the risk scores: CISNE I (low risk), 56 patients (18.7%); CISNE II (intermediate), 124 (41.5%) and CISNE III (high), 119 (39.8%). The primary outcome occurred in 10.7%, 19.4% and 33.6%, respectively, according to the cohort. Compared with the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer Risk Index Score (MASCC RIS), CISNE I stratum had significantly lower sensitivity (0.22 vs. 0.95 of MASCC low risk) but higher specificity (0.91 vs. 0.17) to predict zero occurrence of the primary outcome. The CISNE model was useful for identifying low-risk FN patients for outpatient treatment. The combination of the CISNE and MASCC RIS may help emergency physicians cope with FN more confidently.
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.