ArticleCureus2024
Granulocyte Transfusions in Neutropenic Infections: Insights From a Single-Center Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Despite the development of modern antibiotic and antifungal therapies, neutropenic infections remain life-threatening. Granulocyte transfusion (GTX) is a less frequently used treatment modality in patients with refractory neutropenic infections. The role of donor GTX remains controversial, partly because of the lack of proper clinical trials. This study aimed to contribute to the literature by evaluating the efficacy and side effects of granulocyte transfusions in our center. Methods Eight febrile neutropenic patients with confirmed infections received granulocyte transfusions from ABO-compatible related and unrelated donors. Donors received filgrastim and dexamethasone stimulation, and granulocyte suspensions were irradiated and administered within six hours. Monitoring, antibiotic therapy, and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) support were maintained. Results Our study observed a 28-day survival rate of 25%, which was lower than that reported in previous literature. The median number of transfusions was 3, with an average eight-day duration post-infection diagnosis, and no side effects were observed. Conclusion While some patients benefited from GTX, overall survival rates remained modest, indicating the need for further research. Prospective, well-powered randomized controlled trials are essential to address patient selection, dosing, and duration to determine the clinical utility of GTX. This study underscores the complexity of GTX in real-world clinical practice and provides insight into the ongoing debate regarding its efficacy in treating severe neutropenic infections.
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.