↓ Skip to main content

Granulocyte transfusions for treating infections in people with neutropenia or neutrophil dysfunction

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Granulocyte transfusions for treating infections in people with neutropenia or neutrophil dysfunction
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005339.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lise J Estcourt, Simon J Stanworth, Sally Hopewell, Carolyn Doree, Marialena Trivella, Edwin Massey

Abstract

Despite modern antimicrobials and supportive therapy bacterial and fungal infections are still major complications in people with prolonged disease-related or treatment-related neutropenia. Transfusions of granulocytes have a long history of usage in clinical practice to support and treat severe infection in high-risk groups of patients with neutropenia or neutrophil dysfunction. However, there is considerable current variability in therapeutic granulocyte transfusion practice, and uncertainty about the beneficial effect of transfusions given as an adjunct to antibiotics on mortality. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2005. To determine the effectiveness and safety of granulocyte transfusions compared to no granulocyte transfusions as adjuncts to antimicrobials for treating infections in people with neutropenia or disorders of neutrophil function aimed at reducing mortality and other adverse outcomes related to infection. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 2). MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980) and ongoing trial databases to 11 February 2016. RCTs comparing people with neutropenia or disorders of neutrophil dysfunction receiving granulocyte transfusions to treat infection with a control group receiving no granulocyte transfusions. Neonates are the subject of another Cochrane review and were excluded from this review. There was no restriction by outcomes examined, language or publication status. We used standard methodological procedures expected by the Cochrane Collaboration. We identified 10 trials that met the inclusion criteria with a total of 587 participants. We also identified another ongoing trial. These trials were conducted between 1975 and 2015. None of the studies included people with neutrophil dysfunction. The studies differed in the type of infections they included. Six studies included both children and adults, however data were not reported separately for children and adults. The two newest studies gave granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) to donors; both were stopped early due to lack of recruitment. Three studies re-randomised participants and therefore quantitative analysis was unable to be performed.Overall the quality of the evidence was very low to low across different outcomes according to GRADE methodology. This was due to many of the studies being at high risk of bias, and many of the outcomes being imprecise.There may be no difference in all-cause mortality over 30 days between participants receiving therapeutic granulocyte transfusions and those that did not (six studies; 321 participants; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.04; very low-quality evidence). There were no differences between the granulocyte dose subgroups (< 1 x 10(10) per day versus ≥ 1 x 10(10) per day) (test for subgroup differences P = 0.39). There was a difference in all-cause mortality between the studies based on the age of the study (published before 2000 versus published 2000 or later) (test for subgroup differences P = 0.03). There was no difference in all-cause mortality between participants receiving granulocyte transfusions and those that did not in the newest study (one study; 111 participants; RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.73, low-quality evidence). There may be a reduction in all-cause mortality in participants receiving granulocyte transfusions compared to those that did not in studies published before the year 2000 (five studies; 210 participants; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.85; low-quality evidence).There may be no difference in clinical reversal of concurrent infection between participants receiving therapeutic granulocyte transfusions and those that did not (five studies; 286 participants; RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.19; low-quality evidence).There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is a difference in pulmonary serious adverse events (1 study; 24 participants; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.88; very low-quality evidence).None of the studies reported number of days on therapeutic antibiotics, number of adverse events requiring discontinuation of treatment, or quality of life.Six studies reported their funding sources and all were funded by governments or charities. In people who are neutropenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or a haematopoietic stem cell transplant, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether granulocyte transfusions affect all-cause mortality. To be able to detect a decrease in all-cause mortality from 35% to 30% would require a study containing at least 2748 participants (80% power, 5% significance). There is low-grade evidence that therapeutic granulocyte transfusions may not increase the number of participants with clinical resolution of an infection.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 7 8%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 17 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Psychology 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 19 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 October 2019.
All research outputs
#4,083,380
of 14,158,001 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,047
of 10,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,759
of 262,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#126
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,158,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,870 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 262,177 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.