ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2026
Development and Validation of a Prognostic Risk Score for Patients With Cancer and Neutropenic Fever Presenting to the Emergency Department.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Neutropenic fever (NF) is a life-threatening oncologic emergency associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Current predictive risk-stratification scores' limitations include outdated criteria, subjectivity, and low usage in the emergency department (ED). We sought to develop and externally validate a pragmatic, objective risk score to predict adverse outcomes in patients presenting to the ED with cancer and NF. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from 2 comprehensive cancer centers. The derivation cohort included adults presenting with NF to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. External validation was conducted using data from the MD Anderson Cancer Center. The primary composite adverse outcome included intensive care unit, bacteremia, oxygen supplementation therapy, hospital stay >3 days, and in-hospital mortality. Predictors were assigned points based on the final model coefficients. Results: The derivation and validation cohorts included 827 and 777 patients, respectively. The final score that included multiple clinical and laboratory biomarkers demonstrated an area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve value of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.80) in the derivation cohort and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.74-0.83) in the validation cohort. In patients classified as low risk, in-hospital mortality was 0.0%, and intensive care unit admission occurred in < 2% of cases across both cohorts. Conclusion: The newly developed risk score effectively stratified patients with NF in the ED. Its reliance on readily available, non-subjective data supports the feasibility of its real-time implementation and could improve decision-making and reduce unnecessary hospitalization. Prospective validation in diverse clinical settings is needed.
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.