↓ Skip to main content

G-CSF and GM-CSF for treating or preventing neonatal infections

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
155 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
G-CSF and GM-CSF for treating or preventing neonatal infections
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003066
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Carr, Neena Modi, Caroline J Doré

Abstract

The colony stimulating factors (CSFs), granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF), are naturally occurring cytokines that stimulate the production and antibacterial function of neutrophils and monocytes. Two strategies have been adopted for exploring whether CSFs can provide clinical benefit for preterm infants. The first has investigated their use as a treatment to improve outcome in established systemic infection, especially when complicated by a low neutrophil count. The alternative strategy has been to use CSFs prophylactically, to prevent sepsis prospectively through stimulation of neutrophil production and bactericidal function. To determine the efficacy and safety of the haemopoietic colony stimulating factors (G-CSF or GM-CSF) in newborn infants, when used for:a) treatment of suspected or proven systemic infection to reduce mortality, orb) prophylaxis, to prevent systemic infection in infants at high risk of nosocomial infection. To determine, in subgroup analysis, the influence of pre-existing or high risk of neutropenia on the outcome of therapy. PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2003) were searched in April 2003 using the keywords: G-CSF, GM-CSF, infant newborn, with and without the limit Clinical Trial. In addition, reference lists of identified RCTs, meta-analyses and personal files were searched. The criteria used to select studies for inclusion were: RCT. Newborn infants in intensive care. G-CSF or GM-CSF given as treatment in conjunction with antibiotics for suspected or microbiologically proven systemic infection. G-CSF or GM-CSF given as prophylaxis with the aim of reducing the incidence of systemic infection. Treatment studies reporting all cause mortality. Prophylaxis studies reporting subsequent incidence of sepsis and / or mortality. Relative risks (RR) and risk differences (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the fixed effect model are reported. Number needed to treat (NNT) was calculated for the outcomes that showed a statistically significant reduction in RR. Seven treatment studies of 257 infants with suspected systemic bacterial infection and three prophylaxis studies comprising 359 neonates are analysed. Treatment studies: There is no evidence that the addition of G-CSF or GM-CSF to antibiotic therapy in preterm infants with suspected systemic infection reduces immediate all cause mortality. No significant survival advantage was seen at 14 days from the start of therapy [typical RR 0.71 (95% CI 0.38,1.33); typical RD -0.05 (95% CI -0.14, 0.04)]. However all seven of the treatment studies were small, the largest recruiting only 60 infants. The subgroup analysis of 97 infants from three treatment studies who, in addition to systemic infection, had clinically significant neutropenia (< 1.7 x 10(9)/l) at trial entry, does show a significant reduction in mortality by day 14 [RR 0.34 (95% CI 0.12, 0.92); RD -0.18 (95% CI -0.33, -0.03); NNT 6 (95% CI 3-33)]. Prophylaxis studies have not demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality in neonates receiving GM-CSF [RR 0.59 (95% CI 0.24,1.44); RD -0.03 (95% CI -0.08,0.02)]. The identification of sepsis as the primary outcome of prophylaxis studies has been hampered by inadequately stringent definitions of systemic infection. However, data from one study suggest that prophylactic GM-CSF may provide protection against infection when given to preterm infants who are neutropenic or at high risk of developing postnatal neutropenia. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the introduction of either G-CSF or GM-CSF into neonatal practice, either as treatment of established systemic infection to reduce resulting mortality, or as prophylaxis to prevent systemic infection in high risk neonates. No toxicity of CSF use was reported in any systemic infection to reduce resulting mortality, or as prophylaxis to prevent systemic infection in high risk neonates. No toxicity of CSF use was reported in any study included in this review. The limited data suggesting that CSF treatment may reduce mortality when systemic infection is accompanied by severe neutropenia should be investigated further in adequately powered trials which recruit sufficient infants infected with organisms associated with a significant mortality risk.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 4%
Unknown 65 96%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Unknown 65 96%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 July 2014.
All research outputs
#7,860,049
of 12,527,093 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,460
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,674
of 192,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#177
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,093 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,385 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 201 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.