Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30887505›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2019

Outpatient treatment for people with cancer who develop a low-risk febrile neutropaenic event.

Rodolfo Rivas-Ruiz, Miguel Villasis-Keever, Guadalupe Miranda-Novales, Osvaldo D Castelán-Martínez, Silvia Rivas-Contreras

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Critically ill patients with cancer: A clinical perspective.World journal of clinical oncology · 2020
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Rodolfo Rivas-RuizCentro de adiestramiento en Investigación Clínica, Insitiuto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Centro Medico Nacional Siglo XXI, Hospital de Pediatria del CMN SXXI, Avenida Cuauhtemoc #330, Mexico City, Mexico.
Miguel Villasis-Keever
Guadalupe Miranda-Novales
Osvaldo D Castelán-Martínez
Silvia Rivas-Contreras
Centro Medico Nacional Siglo XXI · MXInstituto de Salud del Estado de México · MXMexican Social Security Institute · MXUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México · MX

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPeople with febrile neutropaenia are usually treated in a hospital setting. Recently, treatment with oral antibiotics has been proven to be as effective as intravenous therapy. However, the efficacy and safety of outpatient treatment have not been fully evaluated.

objectivesTo compare the efficacy (treatment failure and mortality) and safety (adverse events of antimicrobials) of outpatient treatment compared with inpatient treatment in people with cancer who have low-risk febrile neutropaenia. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 11) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid (from 1948 to November week 4, 2018), Embase via Ovid (from 1980 to 2018, week 48) and trial registries (National Cancer Institute, MetaRegister of Controlled Trials, Medical Research Council Clinical Trial Directory). We handsearched all references of included studies and major reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing outpatient with inpatient treatment for people with cancer who develop febrile neutropaenia. The outpatient group included those who started treatment as an inpatient and completed the antibiotic course at home (sequential) as well as those who started treatment at home. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, methodological quality, and extracted data. Primary outcome measures were: treatment failure and mortality; secondary outcome measures considered were: duration of fever, adverse drug reactions to antimicrobial treatment, duration of neutropaenia, duration of hospitalisation, duration of antimicrobial treatment, and quality of life (QoL). We estimated risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data; we calculated weighted mean differences for continuous data. Random-effects meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses were conducted. MAIN

resultsWe included ten RCTs, six in adults (628 participants) and four in children (366 participants). We found no clear evidence of a difference in treatment failure between the outpatient and inpatient groups, either in adults (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.85, I AUTHORS'

conclusionsOutpatient treatment for low-risk febrile neutropaenia in people with cancer probably makes little or no difference to treatment failure and mortality compared with the standard hospital (inpatient) treatment and may reduce time that patients need to be treated in hospital.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareHospitalizationAdolescentAdultAnti-Bacterial AgentsChildFebrile NeutropeniaFemaleFeverHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality of LifeAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID30887505
PMCPMC6423292
OpenAlexW1907775349

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.