ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2024
Determining sensitivity and specificity of risk scores for QTc interval prolongation in hemato-oncology patients prescribed systemic antifungal therapy: a retrospective cross-sectional study.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk for QTc prolongation in patients of various medical specialties - a retrospective study on risk factors and usability of the Tisdale Score.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026Article
- Tisdale-score-based risk stratification of QTc prolongations in hospitalized patients receiving azole antifungal therapy-a retrospective study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Risk Stratification of QTc Prolongations in Hospitalized Cardiology and Gastroenterology Patients Using the Tisdale Score-A Retrospective Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQTc interval prolongation can result in potentially lethal arrhythmias. One risk factor is QTc-prolonging drugs, including some antifungals often used in hemato-oncology patients. Screening tools for patients at risk have not yet been investigated in this patient population.
aimOur aim was to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of five QTc risk scores in hemato-oncology patients receiving systemic antifungal therapy.
methodData were retrieved from an internal study database including adult hemato-oncology patients prescribed systemic antifungal therapy. Data on QTc-prolonging medication, risk factors for QTc prolongation, and electrocardiograms (ECG) were collected retrospectively for a period of 12 months. The QTc risk scores according to Tisdale, Vandael, Berger, Bindraban, and Aboujaoude as well as their sensitivity and specificity were calculated.
resultsDuring the evaluated period, 77 patients were prescribed systemic antifungals resulting in 187 therapy episodes. Regarding therapy episodes, median age was 56 years (IQR 44-68), 41% (77) were female, and a median of 3 QTc-prolonging drugs were prescribed (range 0-6). ECGs were available for 45 (24%) of the therapy episodes 3-11 days after initiation of the antifungal therapy, 22 of which showed QTc prolongation. Regarding these 45 therapy episodes, sensitivity and specificity of the risk scores were calculated as follows: Tisdale 86%/22%, Vandael 91%/35%, Berger 32%/83%, Bindraban 50%/78%, Aboujaoude 14%/87%.
conclusionThe QTc risk scores according to Tisdale and Vandael showed sufficient sensitivity for risk stratification in the studied patient population. In contrast, risk scores according to Berger, Bindraban, and Aboujaoude cannot be considered suitable due to poor sensitivity.
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.