ArticleGynecologic oncology reports2021
Evaluation of the clinical Index of Stable febrile neutropenia risk stratification system for management of febrile neutropenia in gynecologic oncology patients.
Article in Gynecologic oncology reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Review of Interventions to Optimize Emergency Department Care of Patients with Cancer.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveScoring systems have been developed to identify low risk patients with febrile neutropenia (FN) who may be candidates for outpatient management. We sought to validate the predictive accuracy of the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) score alone and in conjunction with alternative scoring systems for risk of complications among gynecologic oncology patients.
methodsWe conducted a single institution retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to an academic gynecologic oncology service for FN. We examined the performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value) of three scoring systems (Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC), CISNE cut-off 1 (Low risk = 0), CISNE cut-off 2 (Low risk = <3)), and the combination of MASCC and CISNE to predict complications: inpatient death, ICU admission, hypotension, respiratory/renal failure, mental status change, cardiac failure, bleeding, and arrhythmia.
resultsFifty patients were identified for study inclusion. No low-risk CISNE patients died during hospitalization. Fewer CISNE low-risk patients experienced complications compared to high-risk patients, regardless of cut-off. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the scoring systems were: CISNE 1-37.1%, 86.7%, 86.7%, 37.1%; CISNE 2-85.7%, 46.7%, 78.9%, 58.3%; MASCC-82.9%, 66.7%, 85.3%, 62.5%; MASCC + CISNE 1-37.1%, 93.3%, 92.9%, 38.9%; MASCC + CISNE 2-80%, 73.3%, 87.5%, 61.1%.
conclusionsThe CISNE scoring system is an appropriate tool for the identification of patients with gynecologic cancers and FN who may benefit from close outpatient management. CISNE cut-off 2 performed comparably to the MASCC, but CISNE cut-off 1 had a higher specificity and positive predictive value.
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.