Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31127438›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2020

Risk assessment of febrile neutropenia and evaluation of G-CSF use in patients with cancer: a real-life study.

Elif Aras, Aygin Bayraktar-Ekincioglu, Saadettin Kilickap

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Real-world use of G-CSF primary prophylaxis in small cell lung cancer: secondary data analysis from the French national cohorts KBP-2020-CPHG and ESCAP-2020-CPHG.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Impact of Clinical Pharmacist-led Interventions in TurkeyTurkish journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2021
    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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elif ArasFaculty of Pharmacy, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey.
Aygin Bayraktar-EkinciogluFaculty of Pharmacy, Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey. aygin@hacettepe.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3481-0074
Saadettin KilickapDepartment of Medical Oncology, Hacettepe University Oncology Hospital, Sihhiye, Ankara, Turkey.
Hacettepe University · TRHacettepe University Hospital · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe guidelines suggest using granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) for febrile neutropenia (FN) as prophylaxis in chemotherapy protocols with the risk of 10-20% after assessment of patient's risk factors. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess the risk of FN by using the Patient Risk Score (PRS) and evaluating G-CSF use and its side effects by a clinical pharmacist at an outpatient clinic.

methodsThe study was conducted from May 2017 until November 2017 at the University Hospital oncology outpatient clinic. Patients who receive chemotherapy protocols with FN risk of 10-20% and > 20% and were initiated G-CSF were included. The patients' risk factors were assessed by the PRS, and the side effects were monitored for 3 months by a clinical pharmacist via a patient self-reported monitoring card.

resultsA total of 118 patients were included (286 interviews) in the study. There was a significant increase between the first and third visits on the PRS total scores of patients (p = 0.034). The patterns of G-CSF use showed that 34.7% undertreated, 22.8% overtreated, and 42.3% of patients were correctly treated for the prophylaxis. The severity of G-CSF-related musculoskeletal pain was increased on the second and third days of treatment.

conclusionsThe use of G-CSFs for FN prophylaxis is recommended; however, there may be a group of patients who are inadequately or unnecessarily treated. Therefore, patients should be assessed for the risk of developing FN in each cycle of chemotherapy and a regular risk assessment by using the PRS can be implemented in the monitoring process.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFebrile NeutropeniaFemaleGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsProspective StudiesRisk AssessmentYoung AdultGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorClinical pharmacistFebrile neutropeniaG-CSFProphylaxisRiskSide effect

Identifiers

PMID31127438
OpenAlexW2946036987

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.