ArticleTransfusion2020
In canine bacterial pneumonia circulating granulocyte counts determine outcome from donor cells.
Article in Transfusion, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedERRATUM.2020
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn experimental canine septic shock, depressed circulating granulocyte counts were associated with a poor outcome and increasing counts with prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) improved outcome. Therapeutic G-CSF, in contrast, did not improve circulating counts or outcome, and therefore investigation was undertaken to determine whether transfusing granulocytes therapeutically would improve outcome. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsTwenty-eight purpose-bred beagles underwent an intrabronchial Staphylococcus aureus challenge and 4 hours later were randomly assigned to granulocyte (40-100 × 10
resultsGranulocyte transfusion significantly expanded the low circulating counts for hours compared to septic controls but was not associated with significant mortality benefit (1/14, 7% vs. 2/14, 14%, respectively; p = 0.29). Septic animals with higher granulocyte count at 4 hours (median [interquartile range] of 3.81 3.39-5.05] vs. 1.77 [1.25-2.50]) had significantly increased survival independent of whether they were transfused with granulocytes. In a subgroup analysis, animals with higher circulating granulocyte counts receiving donor granulocytes had worsened lung injury compared to septic controls. Conversely, donor granulocytes decreased lung injury in septic animals with lower counts.
conclusionDuring bacterial pneumonia, circulating counts predict the outcome of transfusing granulocytes. With low but normal counts, transfusing granulocytes does not improve survival and injures the lung, whereas for animals with very low counts, but not absolute neutropenia, granulocyte transfusion improves lung function.
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.