| Title |
Management of neutropenic patients in the intensive care unit (NEWBORNS EXCLUDED) recommendations from an expert panel from the French Intensive Care Society (SRLF) with the French Group for Pediatric Intensive Care Emergencies (GFRUP), the French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care (SFAR), the French Society of Hematology (SFH), the French Society for Hospital Hygiene (SF2H), and the French Infectious Diseases Society (SPILF)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, September 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-016-0189-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Schnell, Elie Azoulay, Dominique Benoit, Benjamin Clouzeau, Pierre Demaret, Stéphane Ducassou, Pierre Frange, Matthieu Lafaurie, Matthieu Legrand, Anne-Pascale Meert, Djamel Mokart, Jérôme Naudin, Frédéric Pene, Antoine Rabbat, Emmanuel Raffoux, Patricia Ribaud, Jean-Christophe Richard, François Vincent, Jean-Ralph Zahar, Michael Darmon |
| Abstract |
Neutropenia is defined by either an absolute or functional defect (acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome) of polymorphonuclear neutrophils and is associated with high risk of specific complications that may require intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Specificities in the management of critically ill neutropenic patients prompted the establishment of guidelines dedicated to intensivists. These recommendations were drawn up by a panel of experts brought together by the French Intensive Care Society in collaboration with the French Group for Pediatric Intensive Care Emergencies, the French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, the French Society of Hematology, the French Society for Hospital Hygiene, and the French Infectious Diseases Society. Literature review and formulation of recommendations were performed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Each recommendation was then evaluated and rated by each expert using a methodology derived from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Six fields are covered by the provided recommendations: (1) ICU admission and prognosis, (2) protective isolation and prophylaxis, (3) management of acute respiratory failure, (4) organ failure and organ support, (5) antibiotic management and source control, and (6) hematological management. Most of the provided recommendations are obtained from low levels of evidence, however, suggesting a need for additional studies. Seven recommendations were, however, associated with high level of evidences and are related to protective isolation, diagnostic workup of acute respiratory failure, medical management, and timing surgery in patients with typhlitis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 50% |
| Belgium | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 95 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 13% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 10 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 24% |
| Unknown | 20 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 54% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 25 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 23 November 2017.
All research outputs
#13,786,771
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#732
of 1,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,210
of 321,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#12
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.8. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 321,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.