↓ 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 (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 165 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%
Germany 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 161 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 12%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 28 17%
Unknown 50 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 55 33%

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 03 August 2020.
All research outputs
#4,834,428
of 18,780,663 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,010
of 11,858 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,483
of 243,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#174
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,780,663 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,858 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.5. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 243,565 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 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.