Observational studyPloS one2019
Near-universal hospitalization of US emergency department patients with cancer and febrile neutropenia.
Observational study in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy in patients with cancer who have low-risk neutropenic sepsis: the EASI-SWITCH RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Trial
- Development and Validation of a Prognostic Risk Score for Patients With Cancer and Neutropenic Fever Presenting to the Emergency Department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSFs) for the prevention of febrile neutropenia (FN) in patients with cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023Article
- Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia and Febrile Neutropenia in the US: A Beast of Burden That Needs to Be Tamed?The oncologist · 2022Review
- Procalcitonin as a Predictive Tool for Death and ICU Admission among Febrile Neutropenic Patients Visiting the Emergency Department.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Article
- Observation unit use among patients with cancer following emergency department visits: Results of a multicenter prospective cohort from CONCERN.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2022Article
- 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
- Health care experiences for older adults diagnosed with leukemia and lymphoma: Factors associated with emergency department use, timeliness and access of health care.Journal of geriatric oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importanceFebrile neutropenia (FN) is the most common oncologic emergency and is among the most deadly. Guidelines recommend risk stratification and outpatient management of both pediatric and adult FN patients deemed to be at low risk of complications or mortality, but our prior single-center research demonstrated that the vast majority (95%) are hospitalized.
objectiveFrom a nationwide perspective, to determine the proportion of cancer patients of all ages hospitalized after an emergency department (ED) visit for FN, and to analyze variability in hospitalization rates. Our a priori hypothesis was that >90% of US cancer-associated ED FN visits would end in hospitalization.
designAnalysis of data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, 2006-2014.
settingStratified probability sample of all US ED visits.
participantsInclusion criteria were: (1) Clinical Classification Software code indicating cancer, (2) diagnostic code indicating fever, and (3) diagnostic code indicating neutropenia. We excluded visits ending in transfer. EXPOSURE: The hospital at which the visit took place. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Our main outcome is the proportion of ED FN visits ending in hospitalization, with an a priori hypothesis of >90%. Our secondary outcomes are: (a) hospitalization rates among subsets, and (b) proportion of variability in the hospitalization rate attributable to which hospital the patient visited, as measured by the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsOf 348,868 visits selected to be representative of all US ED visits, 94% ended in hospitalization (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 93-94%). Each additional decade of age conferred 1.23x increased odds of hospitalization. Those with private (92%), self-pay (92%), and other (93%) insurance were less likely to be hospitalized than those with public insurance (95%, odds ratios [OR] 0.74-0.76). Hospitalization was least likely at non-metropolitan hospitals (84%, OR 0.15 relative to metropolitan teaching hospitals), and was also less likely at metropolitan non-teaching hospitals (94%, OR 0.64 relative to metropolitan teaching hospitals). The ICC adjusted for hospital random effects and patient and hospital characteristics was 26% (95%CI 23-29%), indicating that 26% of the variability in hospitalization rate was attributable to which hospital the patient visited. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Nearly all cancer-associated ED FN visits in the US end in hospitalization. Inter-hospital variation in hospitalization practices explains 26% of the limited variability in hospitalization decisions. Simple, objective tools are needed to improve risk stratification for ED FN patients.
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.