Table 5.8, GRADE profile: Is secondary prophylaxis with G(M)-CSF more effective than no secondary prophylaxis at improving outcomes in patients with a prior episode of neutropenic sepsis - Neutropenic Sepsis: Prevention and Management of Neutropenic Sepsis in Cancer Patients

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

Quality assessment							No of patients		Effect		Quality
No of studies	Design	Limitations	Inconsistency	Indirectness	Imprecision	Other considerations	Secondary prophylaxis with G(M)-CSF	No secondary prophylaxis	Relative (95% CI)	Absolute	Quality
Neutropenic events
1	randomised trials	no serious limitations	no serious inconsistency	serious¹	serious²	none	36/204 (17.6%)	132/203 (65%)	RR 0.27 (0.2 to 0.37)	475 fewer per 1000 (from 410 fewer to 520 fewer)	LOW
Overtreatment, death, critical care, length of stay, duration of fever, quality of life - not reported
0	-	-	-	-	-	none	-	-	-	-

1: Neutropenic events were defined as ANC <1.0 ×10^˄9/l or neutropenic fever: thus were indirectly related to neutropenic sepsis.
2: Low number of events

Neutropenic Sepsis: Prevention and Management of Neutropenic Sepsis in Cancer Patients.

NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 151.

National Collaborating Centre for Cancer (UK).

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.