ArticleDiscover oncology2022
Validation of the
Article in Discover oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThough febrile neutropenia (FN) risk prediction models are important in clinical practice, their external validation is limited. In this study, we validated the Cycle-Specific Risk of FEbrile Neutropenia after ChEmotherapy (
methodsWe reviewed the medical records of patients with solid malignancies and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma during chemotherapy cycles 2-6 and recorded if patients developed FN, defined as absolute neutrophil counts less than 500 cells/microL with fever more than or equal to 38.2 ℃. The
resultsWe analyzed 2870 chemotherapy cycles, of which 42 (1.5%) were associated with FN. Among those, 3 (7.1%), 14 (33.3%), 5 (12%), and 20 (47.6%) were classified as low, intermediate, high, and very high risk for developing FN, respectively. The AUROCC was 0.72 (95% CI 0.64-0.81). Compared with the low risk group (n = 666), the IRR of developing FN was 1.01 (95% CI 0.15-43.37), 0.69 (95% CI 0.08-32.46) and 1.17 (95% CI 0.17-49.49) in the intermediate (n = 1431), high (n = 498) and very high (n = 275) risk groups, respectively.
conclusionThe
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.