Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40038018›Full record

ReviewSeminars in fetal & neonatal medicine2025

Should granulocyte transfusion therapy for septic neutropenic neonates be resurrected?

Shelley M Lawrence

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in fetal & neonatal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Shelley M LawrenceUniversity of Utah, College of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, 925 Chipeta Dr, Salt Lake City, 84108, UT, USA. Electronic address: shelley.m.lawrence@hsc.utah.edu.

Funding

NeoChip for specific and rapid identification of congenital CMV and neonatal HSV infections on minimal sample volumeR01HD099250 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI LAWRENCE, SHELLEY M · 2020 to 2024
$2.9M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD099250
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nearly half a century ago, granulocyte transfusions were trialed in critically ill, septic, neutropenic neonates and showed improved survival when used concurrently with antimicrobials. Benefits were particularly noteworthy for Gram-negative and fungal infections. The introduction of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor into clinical medicine in 1991 and inherent problems associated with granulocyte procurement for transfusion caused granulocyte transfusions to become nearly extinct for this patient population. Simultaneous technological and clinical management advancements have enabled the survival of younger neonates, who are at the highest risk for neutropenia and neonatal sepsis. These infants have well-documented developmental deficiencies in the number and functional capabilities of their neutrophils compared to older patients. A continued surge in antimicrobial resistance and an increasing number of Gram-negative infections have created an urgent need for clinicians to rethink old therapies and consider new ones. This review details the evolution of granulocyte transfusions and whether they should be resurrected in neonatal patients.

Indexed as

GranulocytesLeukocyte TransfusionNeonatal SepsisNeutropeniaSepsisGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorHumansInfant, NewbornGranulocyte Colony-Stimulating FactorAntimicrobial resistanceFungal infectionsGram-negative infectionsGranulocyte transfusionLeukopoiesisNeonatal infectionsNeonatal sepsisNeonateNeutropeniaPreterm neonate

Identifiers

PMID40038018
PMCPMC12033072

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.