ArticleCancers2022
Prognostic Impact of Neutropenia in Cancer Patients with Septic Shock: A 2009-2017 Nationwide Cohort Study.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of neutropenia severity in the setting of recent chemotherapy on mortality in sepsis.International journal of clinical oncology · 2026Article
- Authors' response to: Relationship between leukopenia and mortality among patients with haematological malignancies.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- Septic shock in the immunocompromised cancer patient: a narrative review.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Review
- Neutropenic Sepsis in the Intensive Care Unit: Differences in Clinical Profile and Outcomes According to the Cause of Neutropenia.Open forum infectious diseases · 2024Article
- Sepsis mortality among patients with haematological malignancy admitted to intensive care 2000-2022: a binational cohort study.Critical care (London, England) · 2024Article
- Near-Infrared Spectroscopy with Supervised Machine Learning as a Screening Tool for Neutropenia.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Neutropenia's prognostic impact on mortality in cancer patients with septic shock remains controversial despite recent advances in cancer and sepsis management. This population-based, case-control study aimed to determine whether neutropenia could be related to an increase in short-term and long-term mortality. (2) Methods: This population-based, case-control study used data from the National Health Insurance Service of Korea. Adult cancer patients who presented to the emergency department with septic shock from 2009 to 2017 were included. The 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were evaluated as short-term and long-term outcomes. Cox proportional hazard regression was performed after adjusting for age, sex, Charlson comorbidity index, and neutropenia. (3) Results: In 43,466 adult cancer patients with septic shock, the 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were 52.1% and 81.3%, respectively. In total, 6391 patients had neutropenic septic shock, and the prevalent cancer type was lung cancer, followed by leukemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, stomach cancer, and colon cancer. Furthermore, 30-day and 1-year mortality was lower in patients with neutropenia than in those without neutropenia. After adjustment for confounders, neutropenia was independently associated with decreased 30-day and 1-year mortality rates. (4) Conclusions: In cancer patients presenting to the emergency department with septic shock, the presence of neutropenia did not increase mortality. This suggests that neutropenia may not be used as a single triage criterion for withholding intensive care in cancer patients presenting to the emergency department with septic shock.
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.