↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 Mendeley
Title
Granulocyte transfusions for preventing infections in people with neutropenia or neutrophil dysfunction
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005341.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lise J Estcourt, Simon J Stanworth, Carolyn Doree, Patricia Blanco, Sally Hopewell, 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 therapy-related neutropenia. Since the late 1990s there has been increasing demand for donated granulocyte transfusions to treat or prevent severe infections in people who lack their own functional granulocytes. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009. To determine the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic granulocyte transfusions compared with a control population not receiving this intervention for preventing all-cause mortality, mortality due to infection, and evidence of infection due to infection or due to any other cause in people with neutropenia or disorders of neutrophil function. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), theTransfusion Evidence Library (from 1980) and ongoing trial databases to April 20 2015. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing people receiving granulocyte transfusions to prevent the development of 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, but this review focuses on mortality, mortality due to infection and adverse events. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Twelve trials met the inclusion criteria. One trial is still ongoing, leaving a total of 11 trials eligible involving 653 participants. These trials were conducted between 1978 and 2006 and enrolled participants from fairly comparable patient populations. None of the studies included people with neutrophil dysfunction. Ten studies included only adults, and two studies included children and adults. Ten of these studies contained separate data for each arm and were able to be critically appraised. One study re-randomised people 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 outcome estimates being imprecise.All-cause mortality was reported for nine studies (609 participants). There was no difference in all-cause mortality over 30 days between people receiving prophylactic granulocyte transfusions and those that did not (seven studies; 437 participants; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36, very low-quality evidence).Mortality due to infection was reported for seven studies (398 participants). There was no difference in mortality due to infection over 30 days between people receiving prophylactic granulocyte transfusions and those that did not (six studies; 286 participants; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.44, very low-quality evidence).The number of people with localised or systemic bacterial or fungal infections was reported for nine studies (609 participants). There were differences between the granulocyte dose subgroups (test for subgroup differences P = 0.01). There was no difference in the number of people with infections over 30 days between people receiving prophylactic granulocyte transfusions and those that did not in the low-dose granulocyte group (< 1.0 x 10(10) granulocytes per day) (four studies, 204 participants; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.20; very low-quality evidence). There was a decreased number of people with infections over 30 days in the people receiving prophylactic granulocyte transfusions in the intermediate-dose granulocyte group (1.0 x 10(10) to 4.0 x 10(10) granulocytes per day) (4 studies; 293 participants; RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.63, low-quality evidence).There was a decreased number of participants with bacteraemia and fungaemia in the participants receiving prophylactic granulocyte transfusions (nine studies; 609 participants; RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.65, low-quality evidence).There was no difference in the number of participants with localised bacterial or fungal infection in the participants receiving prophylactic granulocyte transfusions (six studies; 296 participants; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.14; very low-quality evidence).Serious adverse events were only reported for participants receiving granulocyte transfusions and donors of granulocyte transfusions. In people who are neutropenic due to myelosuppressive chemotherapy or a haematopoietic stem cell transplant, there is low-grade evidence that prophylactic granulocyte transfusions decrease the risk of bacteraemia or fungaemia. There is low-grade evidence that the effect of prophylactic granulocyte transfusions may be dose-dependent, a dose of at least 10 x 10(10) per day being more effective at decreasing the risk of infection. There is insufficient evidence to determine any difference in mortality rates due to infection, all-cause mortality, or serious adverse events.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 214 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 10%
Researcher 18 8%
Student > Bachelor 14 6%
Other 13 6%
Other 33 15%
Unknown 88 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Psychology 7 3%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 92 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 06 July 2021.
All research outputs
#6,783,328
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,921
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,027
of 278,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#188
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 278,092 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.