| Quality assessment | Summary of findings | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summary of findings | Effect | Quality | |||||||||
| No of studies | Design | Limitations | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | Enhanced training of healthcare professionals on the identification and management of neutropenic sepsis | standard training of healthcare professionals on the identification and management of neutropenic sepsis | Relative (95% CI) | Absolute | |
| Door-to-needle time (Better indicated by lower values) | |||||||||||
| 2 | observational studies | very serious1 | serious2 | serious3 | serious4 | none | 163 | 104 | Not pooled | VERY LOW | |
One study is a retrospective study with a high risk of bias and the other study, which is an audit, is only reported in abstract form and can therefore not be comprehensively evaluated
The studies report different results, both statistically and numerically.
The interventions are under-specified in the studies.
The sample sizes were small in both studies.
From: 3, Information, support and training
NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.