ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025
Multinational association for supportive care in cancer (MASCC) versus clinical index of stable febrile neutropenia (CISNE): evaluation of predictive performance and clinical utility in patients with febrile neutropenia.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2025. 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.
- A multidimensional nomogram for clinical risk stratification of bloodstream infection and mortality in hematologic malignancies.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesFebrile neutropenia is a life-threatening complication of chemotherapy, requiring prompt risk stratification to guide initial management decisions. While the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score has long been used to identify low-risk patients, the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE) was developed more recently to refine prognostication among apparently stable individuals. However, there remains no consensus on which score performs better in real-world emergency settings.
methodsThis retrospective, two-center study included adult patients diagnosed with FN who presented to the emergency departments of two tertiary hospitals between January 2022 and December 2024. Patients were categorized according to MASCC and CISNE scores based on clinical and laboratory parameters at admission. The primary outcome was defined as a composite of unfavorable in-hospital events, including hypotension, respiratory failure, ICU admission, major bleeding, organ dysfunction, or death. Discriminative ability was evaluated using ROC analysis and AUC comparison, with additional assessment via Net Reclassification Index (NRI) and Decision Curve Analysis (DCA).
resultsA total of 528 patients were included; 137 (25.9%) experienced adverse outcomes. MASCC score demonstrated higher sensitivity (78.8%) compared to CISNE (50.4%), while CISNE had higher specificity (88.2% vs. 75.7%). The AUC for MASCC was 0.838 and for CISNE 0.814; the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.357). However, NRI analysis favored MASCC, indicating more accurate risk classification. DCA further demonstrated superior net clinical benefit of MASCC across relevant probability thresholds.
conclusionsIn the acute care setting, the MASCC score showed relatively higher sensitivity and clinical net benefit, supporting its potential value as a practical tool for early risk stratification in patients presenting with febrile neutropenia.
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.