ReviewSeminars in hematology2024
Infections and antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes.
Review in Seminars in hematology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Hypomethylating agents in vacuoles, E1 enzyme, X-linked, autoinflammatory, somatic syndrome (VEXAS): A systematic review.British journal of haematology · 2026Pooled it
- Real-World Management of HMA-Related Myelosuppression During MDS Treatment in the Canadian Landscape.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Review
- Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Infectious complications are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). Preventing infections could significantly improve both survival and quality of life. Unfortunately, both infections and antimicrobial prophylaxis in patients with MDS are incompletely assessed due to the heterogeneity of disorders included in each publication, changing definitions over time, and lack of standardized prophylaxis practices. Despite these limitations, some basic statements can be made. Infections in MDS are associated with neutropenia. Patients with lower-risk (LR) MDS tend to have fewer infections compared to patients with higher-risk (HR) MDS, which may be related to the different prevalence of neutropenia in the 2 groups. Pneumonia is the most common infection, and bacteria are the most common pathogens. Invasive fungal infections (IFI) are uncommon. Reactivation of latent viruses are rare. With the limited data available, we agree that antibacterial prophylaxis can be considered in patients with HR-MDS during severe neutropenia and early cycles of therapy when infections are most likely to occur. Given the low prevalence of IFI and viral reactivation, antimicrobial prophylaxis for these pathogens is less likely to be advantageous for most patients, although antifungal prophylaxis with activity against mold is commonly used in patients with persistent, profound neutropenia. Ultimately, improved data collection regarding infections and antimicrobial prophylaxis is needed to improve care for patients with MDS.
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.