ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Empiric antibiotic regimen for febrile neutropenia in cancer patients: a tertiary oncology center experience.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Neutropenia is a major obstacle in the care of cancer patients. It is common in patients receiving chemotherapy, associated with significant morbidity and mortality, it occurs in 5-30% among patients with solid tumors and exceeds 80% of those undergoing chemotherapy for hematologic malignancies. Objectives: This study primary endpoint was to assess the clinical outcome of the different antibiotic regimens. The secondary endpoint was to assess the microbiological appropriateness of antibiotic coverage of our carbapenem-sparing empiric regimen for neutropenic fever in patients admitted to the hemato-oncology departments to Augusta Victoria Hospital. Methods: Patients data were extracted from the hospital health information system for all entries pertaining to neutropenic fever from 1 January 2022 to 30 November 2025. Statistical comparison between empiric antibiotic regimens was not performed because treatment escalation followed a predefined sequential protocol, resulting in non-independent groups. Assessment of antimicrobial appropriateness was completed using IBM SPSS Statistics via Fisher's Exact Test. Patient data analyzed, included antibiotic classes used, bacterial culture results, antimicrobial sensitivity testing, cause of fever and outcome of antimicrobial treatment. Exclusions criteria included prophylaxis prescriptions for neutropenic fever and pediatric patients. Results: Overall, 208 patients with febrile neutropenia were evaluated between January 1st, 2022, to November, 2025 Conclusion: The institutional stepwise empiric antibiotic protocol demonstrated high overall clinical response rates in patients with febrile neutropenia, with most patients achieving improvement without requiring escalation beyond first-line therapy. Simulated microbiological assessment suggested increasing pathogen coverage with broader-spectrum regimens, although this should be interpreted cautiously given the limited number of positive culture isolates. These findings support the effectiveness of the current protocol while emphasizing the importance of balancing microbiological coverage with antimicrobial stewardship principles.
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.