A meta-analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime treatment in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia

Febrile neutropenia (FN) causes a major threat to cancer patients after chemotherapy. Broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment is a well-established practice for febrile neutropenia. Piperacillin/Tazobactam (P/T) is the frequently used antibiotic in most of FN cases, whereas the use of cefepime remains unclear regarding its potential risk. However, little systematic analysis has been conducted about comparison between these two drugs. Thus, we undertook this meta-analysis to compare these two monotherapies for febrile neutropenia. Through searching Pubmed, Google scholar, Medline databases, EMBASE, OvidSP, ScienceDirect, Web of science, and China Journal Net (CJN) databases, we used the keywords "(Piperacillin/Tazobactam AND cefepime) AND (febrile neutropenia) AND (cancer or tumor)". Only studies with randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. We screened out a total number of seven clinical trials. This meta-analysis supported that P/T treatment was superior to cefepime treatment based on the average OR comparison, without statistical significance (OR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.98 to 1.64, p = 0.07). We further divided the seven studies into two subgroups based on age and treatment time. The young group (age <= 19) showed no significant difference (OR = 1.10, p = 0.65). While the old group (age < 19) showed that P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.44, p = 0.05). The short-term group (time <= 3 ds) showed P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.40, p = 0.05). While in the long-term group (time < 5 ds), there was no significant difference between P/T and cefepime therapy (OR = 1.06, p = 0.79) Asymmetry in Funnel plots indicated no publication bias (CHI2 = 1.47, I2=0%, and p-value = 0.96) in this meta-analysis. It would be a good clinical trial to use P/T treatment to cure FN in cancer patients compared with cefepime treatment, especially in adult patients or patients with a short-term treatment period. This meta-analysis is practically important during antibiotic treatment in FN management. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Zhang Weidong [verfasserIn] Xiao Chun [verfasserIn] Zhou Sixin [verfasserIn] Wang Rui [verfasserIn] Wang Li [verfasserIn] Jia Liping [verfasserIn] Ma Jinqiu [verfasserIn] Wang Na [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2016

Schlagwörter:	meta-analysis piperacillin/tazobactam cefepime febrile neutropenia cancer

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Bioscience Journal - Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, 2020, 32(2016), 6
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:32 ; year:2016 ; number:6

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ071584013

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ071584013
003	DE-627
005	20230501190255.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230228s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ071584013
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJbbf86301f3354ad88b51f80f89bdfba9
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a QH301-705.5
100	0		\|a Zhang Weidong \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	2	\|a A meta-analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime treatment in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia
264		1	\|c 2016
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Febrile neutropenia (FN) causes a major threat to cancer patients after chemotherapy. Broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment is a well-established practice for febrile neutropenia. Piperacillin/Tazobactam (P/T) is the frequently used antibiotic in most of FN cases, whereas the use of cefepime remains unclear regarding its potential risk. However, little systematic analysis has been conducted about comparison between these two drugs. Thus, we undertook this meta-analysis to compare these two monotherapies for febrile neutropenia. Through searching Pubmed, Google scholar, Medline databases, EMBASE, OvidSP, ScienceDirect, Web of science, and China Journal Net (CJN) databases, we used the keywords "(Piperacillin/Tazobactam AND cefepime) AND (febrile neutropenia) AND (cancer or tumor)". Only studies with randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. We screened out a total number of seven clinical trials. This meta-analysis supported that P/T treatment was superior to cefepime treatment based on the average OR comparison, without statistical significance (OR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.98 to 1.64, p = 0.07). We further divided the seven studies into two subgroups based on age and treatment time. The young group (age <= 19) showed no significant difference (OR = 1.10, p = 0.65). While the old group (age < 19) showed that P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.44, p = 0.05). The short-term group (time <= 3 ds) showed P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.40, p = 0.05). While in the long-term group (time < 5 ds), there was no significant difference between P/T and cefepime therapy (OR = 1.06, p = 0.79) Asymmetry in Funnel plots indicated no publication bias (CHI2 = 1.47, I2=0%, and p-value = 0.96) in this meta-analysis. It would be a good clinical trial to use P/T treatment to cure FN in cancer patients compared with cefepime treatment, especially in adult patients or patients with a short-term treatment period. This meta-analysis is practically important during antibiotic treatment in FN management.
650		4	\|a meta-analysis piperacillin/tazobactam
650		4	\|a cefepime
650		4	\|a febrile neutropenia
650		4	\|a cancer
653		0	\|a Agriculture
653		0	\|a S
653		0	\|a Biology (General)
700	0		\|a Xiao Chun \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Zhou Sixin \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Wang Rui \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Wang Li \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Jia Liping \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Ma Jinqiu \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Wang Na \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Bioscience Journal \|d Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, 2020 \|g 32(2016), 6 \|w (DE-627)555692493 \|w (DE-600)2401404-7 \|x 19813163 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:32 \|g year:2016 \|g number:6
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/bbf86301f3354ad88b51f80f89bdfba9 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/33340 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1981-3163 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 32 \|j 2016 \|e 6

Indexfelder

author_variant	z w zw x c xc z s zs w r wr w l wl j l jl m j mj w n wn
matchkey_str	article:19813163:2016----::mtaayiopprclitzbcavrucfpmtetetnacrai
hierarchy_sort_str	2016
callnumber-subject-code	QH
publishDate	2016
allfields	10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340 doi (DE-627)DOAJ071584013 (DE-599)DOAJbbf86301f3354ad88b51f80f89bdfba9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH301-705.5 Zhang Weidong verfasserin aut A meta-analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime treatment in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Febrile neutropenia (FN) causes a major threat to cancer patients after chemotherapy. Broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment is a well-established practice for febrile neutropenia. Piperacillin/Tazobactam (P/T) is the frequently used antibiotic in most of FN cases, whereas the use of cefepime remains unclear regarding its potential risk. However, little systematic analysis has been conducted about comparison between these two drugs. Thus, we undertook this meta-analysis to compare these two monotherapies for febrile neutropenia. Through searching Pubmed, Google scholar, Medline databases, EMBASE, OvidSP, ScienceDirect, Web of science, and China Journal Net (CJN) databases, we used the keywords "(Piperacillin/Tazobactam AND cefepime) AND (febrile neutropenia) AND (cancer or tumor)". Only studies with randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. We screened out a total number of seven clinical trials. This meta-analysis supported that P/T treatment was superior to cefepime treatment based on the average OR comparison, without statistical significance (OR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.98 to 1.64, p = 0.07). We further divided the seven studies into two subgroups based on age and treatment time. The young group (age <= 19) showed no significant difference (OR = 1.10, p = 0.65). While the old group (age < 19) showed that P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.44, p = 0.05). The short-term group (time <= 3 ds) showed P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.40, p = 0.05). While in the long-term group (time < 5 ds), there was no significant difference between P/T and cefepime therapy (OR = 1.06, p = 0.79) Asymmetry in Funnel plots indicated no publication bias (CHI2 = 1.47, I2=0%, and p-value = 0.96) in this meta-analysis. It would be a good clinical trial to use P/T treatment to cure FN in cancer patients compared with cefepime treatment, especially in adult patients or patients with a short-term treatment period. This meta-analysis is practically important during antibiotic treatment in FN management. meta-analysis piperacillin/tazobactam cefepime febrile neutropenia cancer Agriculture S Biology (General) Xiao Chun verfasserin aut Zhou Sixin verfasserin aut Wang Rui verfasserin aut Wang Li verfasserin aut Jia Liping verfasserin aut Ma Jinqiu verfasserin aut Wang Na verfasserin aut In Bioscience Journal Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, 2020 32(2016), 6 (DE-627)555692493 (DE-600)2401404-7 19813163 nnns volume:32 year:2016 number:6 https://doi.org/10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/bbf86301f3354ad88b51f80f89bdfba9 kostenfrei http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/33340 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1981-3163 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 32 2016 6
spelling	10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340 doi (DE-627)DOAJ071584013 (DE-599)DOAJbbf86301f3354ad88b51f80f89bdfba9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH301-705.5 Zhang Weidong verfasserin aut A meta-analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime treatment in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Febrile neutropenia (FN) causes a major threat to cancer patients after chemotherapy. Broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment is a well-established practice for febrile neutropenia. Piperacillin/Tazobactam (P/T) is the frequently used antibiotic in most of FN cases, whereas the use of cefepime remains unclear regarding its potential risk. However, little systematic analysis has been conducted about comparison between these two drugs. Thus, we undertook this meta-analysis to compare these two monotherapies for febrile neutropenia. Through searching Pubmed, Google scholar, Medline databases, EMBASE, OvidSP, ScienceDirect, Web of science, and China Journal Net (CJN) databases, we used the keywords "(Piperacillin/Tazobactam AND cefepime) AND (febrile neutropenia) AND (cancer or tumor)". Only studies with randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. We screened out a total number of seven clinical trials. This meta-analysis supported that P/T treatment was superior to cefepime treatment based on the average OR comparison, without statistical significance (OR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.98 to 1.64, p = 0.07). We further divided the seven studies into two subgroups based on age and treatment time. The young group (age <= 19) showed no significant difference (OR = 1.10, p = 0.65). While the old group (age < 19) showed that P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.44, p = 0.05). The short-term group (time <= 3 ds) showed P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.40, p = 0.05). While in the long-term group (time < 5 ds), there was no significant difference between P/T and cefepime therapy (OR = 1.06, p = 0.79) Asymmetry in Funnel plots indicated no publication bias (CHI2 = 1.47, I2=0%, and p-value = 0.96) in this meta-analysis. It would be a good clinical trial to use P/T treatment to cure FN in cancer patients compared with cefepime treatment, especially in adult patients or patients with a short-term treatment period. This meta-analysis is practically important during antibiotic treatment in FN management. meta-analysis piperacillin/tazobactam cefepime febrile neutropenia cancer Agriculture S Biology (General) Xiao Chun verfasserin aut Zhou Sixin verfasserin aut Wang Rui verfasserin aut Wang Li verfasserin aut Jia Liping verfasserin aut Ma Jinqiu verfasserin aut Wang Na verfasserin aut In Bioscience Journal Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, 2020 32(2016), 6 (DE-627)555692493 (DE-600)2401404-7 19813163 nnns volume:32 year:2016 number:6 https://doi.org/10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/bbf86301f3354ad88b51f80f89bdfba9 kostenfrei http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/33340 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1981-3163 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 32 2016 6
allfields_unstemmed	10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340 doi (DE-627)DOAJ071584013 (DE-599)DOAJbbf86301f3354ad88b51f80f89bdfba9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH301-705.5 Zhang Weidong verfasserin aut A meta-analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime treatment in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Febrile neutropenia (FN) causes a major threat to cancer patients after chemotherapy. Broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment is a well-established practice for febrile neutropenia. Piperacillin/Tazobactam (P/T) is the frequently used antibiotic in most of FN cases, whereas the use of cefepime remains unclear regarding its potential risk. However, little systematic analysis has been conducted about comparison between these two drugs. Thus, we undertook this meta-analysis to compare these two monotherapies for febrile neutropenia. Through searching Pubmed, Google scholar, Medline databases, EMBASE, OvidSP, ScienceDirect, Web of science, and China Journal Net (CJN) databases, we used the keywords "(Piperacillin/Tazobactam AND cefepime) AND (febrile neutropenia) AND (cancer or tumor)". Only studies with randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. We screened out a total number of seven clinical trials. This meta-analysis supported that P/T treatment was superior to cefepime treatment based on the average OR comparison, without statistical significance (OR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.98 to 1.64, p = 0.07). We further divided the seven studies into two subgroups based on age and treatment time. The young group (age <= 19) showed no significant difference (OR = 1.10, p = 0.65). While the old group (age < 19) showed that P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.44, p = 0.05). The short-term group (time <= 3 ds) showed P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.40, p = 0.05). While in the long-term group (time < 5 ds), there was no significant difference between P/T and cefepime therapy (OR = 1.06, p = 0.79) Asymmetry in Funnel plots indicated no publication bias (CHI2 = 1.47, I2=0%, and p-value = 0.96) in this meta-analysis. It would be a good clinical trial to use P/T treatment to cure FN in cancer patients compared with cefepime treatment, especially in adult patients or patients with a short-term treatment period. This meta-analysis is practically important during antibiotic treatment in FN management. meta-analysis piperacillin/tazobactam cefepime febrile neutropenia cancer Agriculture S Biology (General) Xiao Chun verfasserin aut Zhou Sixin verfasserin aut Wang Rui verfasserin aut Wang Li verfasserin aut Jia Liping verfasserin aut Ma Jinqiu verfasserin aut Wang Na verfasserin aut In Bioscience Journal Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, 2020 32(2016), 6 (DE-627)555692493 (DE-600)2401404-7 19813163 nnns volume:32 year:2016 number:6 https://doi.org/10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/bbf86301f3354ad88b51f80f89bdfba9 kostenfrei http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/33340 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1981-3163 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 32 2016 6
allfieldsGer	10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340 doi (DE-627)DOAJ071584013 (DE-599)DOAJbbf86301f3354ad88b51f80f89bdfba9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH301-705.5 Zhang Weidong verfasserin aut A meta-analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime treatment in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Febrile neutropenia (FN) causes a major threat to cancer patients after chemotherapy. Broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment is a well-established practice for febrile neutropenia. Piperacillin/Tazobactam (P/T) is the frequently used antibiotic in most of FN cases, whereas the use of cefepime remains unclear regarding its potential risk. However, little systematic analysis has been conducted about comparison between these two drugs. Thus, we undertook this meta-analysis to compare these two monotherapies for febrile neutropenia. Through searching Pubmed, Google scholar, Medline databases, EMBASE, OvidSP, ScienceDirect, Web of science, and China Journal Net (CJN) databases, we used the keywords "(Piperacillin/Tazobactam AND cefepime) AND (febrile neutropenia) AND (cancer or tumor)". Only studies with randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. We screened out a total number of seven clinical trials. This meta-analysis supported that P/T treatment was superior to cefepime treatment based on the average OR comparison, without statistical significance (OR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.98 to 1.64, p = 0.07). We further divided the seven studies into two subgroups based on age and treatment time. The young group (age <= 19) showed no significant difference (OR = 1.10, p = 0.65). While the old group (age < 19) showed that P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.44, p = 0.05). The short-term group (time <= 3 ds) showed P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.40, p = 0.05). While in the long-term group (time < 5 ds), there was no significant difference between P/T and cefepime therapy (OR = 1.06, p = 0.79) Asymmetry in Funnel plots indicated no publication bias (CHI2 = 1.47, I2=0%, and p-value = 0.96) in this meta-analysis. It would be a good clinical trial to use P/T treatment to cure FN in cancer patients compared with cefepime treatment, especially in adult patients or patients with a short-term treatment period. This meta-analysis is practically important during antibiotic treatment in FN management. meta-analysis piperacillin/tazobactam cefepime febrile neutropenia cancer Agriculture S Biology (General) Xiao Chun verfasserin aut Zhou Sixin verfasserin aut Wang Rui verfasserin aut Wang Li verfasserin aut Jia Liping verfasserin aut Ma Jinqiu verfasserin aut Wang Na verfasserin aut In Bioscience Journal Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, 2020 32(2016), 6 (DE-627)555692493 (DE-600)2401404-7 19813163 nnns volume:32 year:2016 number:6 https://doi.org/10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/bbf86301f3354ad88b51f80f89bdfba9 kostenfrei http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/33340 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1981-3163 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 32 2016 6
allfieldsSound	10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340 doi (DE-627)DOAJ071584013 (DE-599)DOAJbbf86301f3354ad88b51f80f89bdfba9 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH301-705.5 Zhang Weidong verfasserin aut A meta-analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime treatment in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Febrile neutropenia (FN) causes a major threat to cancer patients after chemotherapy. Broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment is a well-established practice for febrile neutropenia. Piperacillin/Tazobactam (P/T) is the frequently used antibiotic in most of FN cases, whereas the use of cefepime remains unclear regarding its potential risk. However, little systematic analysis has been conducted about comparison between these two drugs. Thus, we undertook this meta-analysis to compare these two monotherapies for febrile neutropenia. Through searching Pubmed, Google scholar, Medline databases, EMBASE, OvidSP, ScienceDirect, Web of science, and China Journal Net (CJN) databases, we used the keywords "(Piperacillin/Tazobactam AND cefepime) AND (febrile neutropenia) AND (cancer or tumor)". Only studies with randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. We screened out a total number of seven clinical trials. This meta-analysis supported that P/T treatment was superior to cefepime treatment based on the average OR comparison, without statistical significance (OR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.98 to 1.64, p = 0.07). We further divided the seven studies into two subgroups based on age and treatment time. The young group (age <= 19) showed no significant difference (OR = 1.10, p = 0.65). While the old group (age < 19) showed that P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.44, p = 0.05). The short-term group (time <= 3 ds) showed P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.40, p = 0.05). While in the long-term group (time < 5 ds), there was no significant difference between P/T and cefepime therapy (OR = 1.06, p = 0.79) Asymmetry in Funnel plots indicated no publication bias (CHI2 = 1.47, I2=0%, and p-value = 0.96) in this meta-analysis. It would be a good clinical trial to use P/T treatment to cure FN in cancer patients compared with cefepime treatment, especially in adult patients or patients with a short-term treatment period. This meta-analysis is practically important during antibiotic treatment in FN management. meta-analysis piperacillin/tazobactam cefepime febrile neutropenia cancer Agriculture S Biology (General) Xiao Chun verfasserin aut Zhou Sixin verfasserin aut Wang Rui verfasserin aut Wang Li verfasserin aut Jia Liping verfasserin aut Ma Jinqiu verfasserin aut Wang Na verfasserin aut In Bioscience Journal Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, 2020 32(2016), 6 (DE-627)555692493 (DE-600)2401404-7 19813163 nnns volume:32 year:2016 number:6 https://doi.org/10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/bbf86301f3354ad88b51f80f89bdfba9 kostenfrei http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/33340 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1981-3163 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 32 2016 6
language	English
source	In Bioscience Journal 32(2016), 6 volume:32 year:2016 number:6
sourceStr	In Bioscience Journal 32(2016), 6 volume:32 year:2016 number:6
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	meta-analysis piperacillin/tazobactam cefepime febrile neutropenia cancer Agriculture S Biology (General)
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Bioscience Journal
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Zhang Weidong @@aut@@ Xiao Chun @@aut@@ Zhou Sixin @@aut@@ Wang Rui @@aut@@ Wang Li @@aut@@ Jia Liping @@aut@@ Ma Jinqiu @@aut@@ Wang Na @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2016-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	555692493
id	DOAJ071584013
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ071584013</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230501190255.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ071584013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJbbf86301f3354ad88b51f80f89bdfba9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QH301-705.5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhang Weidong</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A meta-analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime treatment in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Febrile neutropenia (FN) causes a major threat to cancer patients after chemotherapy. Broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment is a well-established practice for febrile neutropenia. Piperacillin/Tazobactam (P/T) is the frequently used antibiotic in most of FN cases, whereas the use of cefepime remains unclear regarding its potential risk. However, little systematic analysis has been conducted about comparison between these two drugs. Thus, we undertook this meta-analysis to compare these two monotherapies for febrile neutropenia. Through searching Pubmed, Google scholar, Medline databases, EMBASE, OvidSP, ScienceDirect, Web of science, and China Journal Net (CJN) databases, we used the keywords "(Piperacillin/Tazobactam AND cefepime) AND (febrile neutropenia) AND (cancer or tumor)". Only studies with randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. We screened out a total number of seven clinical trials. This meta-analysis supported that P/T treatment was superior to cefepime treatment based on the average OR comparison, without statistical significance (OR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.98 to 1.64, p = 0.07). We further divided the seven studies into two subgroups based on age and treatment time. The young group (age <= 19) showed no significant difference (OR = 1.10, p = 0.65). While the old group (age < 19) showed that P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.44, p = 0.05). The short-term group (time <= 3 ds) showed P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.40, p = 0.05). While in the long-term group (time < 5 ds), there was no significant difference between P/T and cefepime therapy (OR = 1.06, p = 0.79) Asymmetry in Funnel plots indicated no publication bias (CHI2 = 1.47, I2=0%, and p-value = 0.96) in this meta-analysis. It would be a good clinical trial to use P/T treatment to cure FN in cancer patients compared with cefepime treatment, especially in adult patients or patients with a short-term treatment period. This meta-analysis is practically important during antibiotic treatment in FN management.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">meta-analysis piperacillin/tazobactam</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">cefepime</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">febrile neutropenia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">cancer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Agriculture</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">S</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Biology (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Xiao Chun</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhou Sixin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wang Rui</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wang Li</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jia Liping</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ma Jinqiu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wang Na</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Bioscience Journal</subfield><subfield code="d">Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, 2020</subfield><subfield code="g">32(2016), 6</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)555692493</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2401404-7</subfield><subfield code="x">19813163</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:32</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/bbf86301f3354ad88b51f80f89bdfba9</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/33340</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1981-3163</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">32</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">6</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	Q - Science
author	Zhang Weidong
spellingShingle	Zhang Weidong misc QH301-705.5 misc meta-analysis piperacillin/tazobactam misc cefepime misc febrile neutropenia misc cancer misc Agriculture misc S misc Biology (General) A meta-analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime treatment in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia
authorStr	Zhang Weidong
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)555692493
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	QH301-705
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	19813163
topic_title	QH301-705.5 A meta-analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime treatment in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia meta-analysis piperacillin/tazobactam cefepime febrile neutropenia cancer
topic	misc QH301-705.5 misc meta-analysis piperacillin/tazobactam misc cefepime misc febrile neutropenia misc cancer misc Agriculture misc S misc Biology (General)
topic_unstemmed	misc QH301-705.5 misc meta-analysis piperacillin/tazobactam misc cefepime misc febrile neutropenia misc cancer misc Agriculture misc S misc Biology (General)
topic_browse	misc QH301-705.5 misc meta-analysis piperacillin/tazobactam misc cefepime misc febrile neutropenia misc cancer misc Agriculture misc S misc Biology (General)
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Bioscience Journal
hierarchy_parent_id	555692493
hierarchy_top_title	Bioscience Journal
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)555692493 (DE-600)2401404-7
title	A meta-analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime treatment in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ071584013 (DE-599)DOAJbbf86301f3354ad88b51f80f89bdfba9
title_full	A meta-analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime treatment in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia
author_sort	Zhang Weidong
journal	Bioscience Journal
journalStr	Bioscience Journal
callnumber-first-code	Q
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2016
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Zhang Weidong Xiao Chun Zhou Sixin Wang Rui Wang Li Jia Liping Ma Jinqiu Wang Na
container_volume	32
class	QH301-705.5
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Zhang Weidong
doi_str_mv	10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	meta-analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime treatment in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia
callnumber	QH301-705.5
title_auth	A meta-analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime treatment in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia
abstract	Febrile neutropenia (FN) causes a major threat to cancer patients after chemotherapy. Broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment is a well-established practice for febrile neutropenia. Piperacillin/Tazobactam (P/T) is the frequently used antibiotic in most of FN cases, whereas the use of cefepime remains unclear regarding its potential risk. However, little systematic analysis has been conducted about comparison between these two drugs. Thus, we undertook this meta-analysis to compare these two monotherapies for febrile neutropenia. Through searching Pubmed, Google scholar, Medline databases, EMBASE, OvidSP, ScienceDirect, Web of science, and China Journal Net (CJN) databases, we used the keywords "(Piperacillin/Tazobactam AND cefepime) AND (febrile neutropenia) AND (cancer or tumor)". Only studies with randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. We screened out a total number of seven clinical trials. This meta-analysis supported that P/T treatment was superior to cefepime treatment based on the average OR comparison, without statistical significance (OR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.98 to 1.64, p = 0.07). We further divided the seven studies into two subgroups based on age and treatment time. The young group (age <= 19) showed no significant difference (OR = 1.10, p = 0.65). While the old group (age < 19) showed that P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.44, p = 0.05). The short-term group (time <= 3 ds) showed P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.40, p = 0.05). While in the long-term group (time < 5 ds), there was no significant difference between P/T and cefepime therapy (OR = 1.06, p = 0.79) Asymmetry in Funnel plots indicated no publication bias (CHI2 = 1.47, I2=0%, and p-value = 0.96) in this meta-analysis. It would be a good clinical trial to use P/T treatment to cure FN in cancer patients compared with cefepime treatment, especially in adult patients or patients with a short-term treatment period. This meta-analysis is practically important during antibiotic treatment in FN management.
abstractGer	Febrile neutropenia (FN) causes a major threat to cancer patients after chemotherapy. Broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment is a well-established practice for febrile neutropenia. Piperacillin/Tazobactam (P/T) is the frequently used antibiotic in most of FN cases, whereas the use of cefepime remains unclear regarding its potential risk. However, little systematic analysis has been conducted about comparison between these two drugs. Thus, we undertook this meta-analysis to compare these two monotherapies for febrile neutropenia. Through searching Pubmed, Google scholar, Medline databases, EMBASE, OvidSP, ScienceDirect, Web of science, and China Journal Net (CJN) databases, we used the keywords "(Piperacillin/Tazobactam AND cefepime) AND (febrile neutropenia) AND (cancer or tumor)". Only studies with randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. We screened out a total number of seven clinical trials. This meta-analysis supported that P/T treatment was superior to cefepime treatment based on the average OR comparison, without statistical significance (OR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.98 to 1.64, p = 0.07). We further divided the seven studies into two subgroups based on age and treatment time. The young group (age <= 19) showed no significant difference (OR = 1.10, p = 0.65). While the old group (age < 19) showed that P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.44, p = 0.05). The short-term group (time <= 3 ds) showed P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.40, p = 0.05). While in the long-term group (time < 5 ds), there was no significant difference between P/T and cefepime therapy (OR = 1.06, p = 0.79) Asymmetry in Funnel plots indicated no publication bias (CHI2 = 1.47, I2=0%, and p-value = 0.96) in this meta-analysis. It would be a good clinical trial to use P/T treatment to cure FN in cancer patients compared with cefepime treatment, especially in adult patients or patients with a short-term treatment period. This meta-analysis is practically important during antibiotic treatment in FN management.
abstract_unstemmed	Febrile neutropenia (FN) causes a major threat to cancer patients after chemotherapy. Broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment is a well-established practice for febrile neutropenia. Piperacillin/Tazobactam (P/T) is the frequently used antibiotic in most of FN cases, whereas the use of cefepime remains unclear regarding its potential risk. However, little systematic analysis has been conducted about comparison between these two drugs. Thus, we undertook this meta-analysis to compare these two monotherapies for febrile neutropenia. Through searching Pubmed, Google scholar, Medline databases, EMBASE, OvidSP, ScienceDirect, Web of science, and China Journal Net (CJN) databases, we used the keywords "(Piperacillin/Tazobactam AND cefepime) AND (febrile neutropenia) AND (cancer or tumor)". Only studies with randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. We screened out a total number of seven clinical trials. This meta-analysis supported that P/T treatment was superior to cefepime treatment based on the average OR comparison, without statistical significance (OR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.98 to 1.64, p = 0.07). We further divided the seven studies into two subgroups based on age and treatment time. The young group (age <= 19) showed no significant difference (OR = 1.10, p = 0.65). While the old group (age < 19) showed that P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.44, p = 0.05). The short-term group (time <= 3 ds) showed P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.40, p = 0.05). While in the long-term group (time < 5 ds), there was no significant difference between P/T and cefepime therapy (OR = 1.06, p = 0.79) Asymmetry in Funnel plots indicated no publication bias (CHI2 = 1.47, I2=0%, and p-value = 0.96) in this meta-analysis. It would be a good clinical trial to use P/T treatment to cure FN in cancer patients compared with cefepime treatment, especially in adult patients or patients with a short-term treatment period. This meta-analysis is practically important during antibiotic treatment in FN management.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	6
title_short	A meta-analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime treatment in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia
url	https://doi.org/10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340 https://doaj.org/article/bbf86301f3354ad88b51f80f89bdfba9 http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/33340 https://doaj.org/toc/1981-3163
remote_bool	true
author2	Xiao Chun Zhou Sixin Wang Rui Wang Li Jia Liping Ma Jinqiu Wang Na
author2Str	Xiao Chun Zhou Sixin Wang Rui Wang Li Jia Liping Ma Jinqiu Wang Na
ppnlink	555692493
callnumber-subject	QH - Natural History and Biology
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340
callnumber-a	QH301-705.5
up_date	2024-07-03T21:04:25.830Z
_version_	1803593361216503808
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ071584013</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230501190255.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230228s2016 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ071584013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJbbf86301f3354ad88b51f80f89bdfba9</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QH301-705.5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhang Weidong</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">A meta-analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime treatment in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Febrile neutropenia (FN) causes a major threat to cancer patients after chemotherapy. Broad-spectrum antibiotic treatment is a well-established practice for febrile neutropenia. Piperacillin/Tazobactam (P/T) is the frequently used antibiotic in most of FN cases, whereas the use of cefepime remains unclear regarding its potential risk. However, little systematic analysis has been conducted about comparison between these two drugs. Thus, we undertook this meta-analysis to compare these two monotherapies for febrile neutropenia. Through searching Pubmed, Google scholar, Medline databases, EMBASE, OvidSP, ScienceDirect, Web of science, and China Journal Net (CJN) databases, we used the keywords "(Piperacillin/Tazobactam AND cefepime) AND (febrile neutropenia) AND (cancer or tumor)". Only studies with randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. We screened out a total number of seven clinical trials. This meta-analysis supported that P/T treatment was superior to cefepime treatment based on the average OR comparison, without statistical significance (OR = 1.27, 95% confidence interval = 0.98 to 1.64, p = 0.07). We further divided the seven studies into two subgroups based on age and treatment time. The young group (age <= 19) showed no significant difference (OR = 1.10, p = 0.65). While the old group (age < 19) showed that P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.44, p = 0.05). The short-term group (time <= 3 ds) showed P/T treatment was better than cefepime with statistical difference (OR = 1.40, p = 0.05). While in the long-term group (time < 5 ds), there was no significant difference between P/T and cefepime therapy (OR = 1.06, p = 0.79) Asymmetry in Funnel plots indicated no publication bias (CHI2 = 1.47, I2=0%, and p-value = 0.96) in this meta-analysis. It would be a good clinical trial to use P/T treatment to cure FN in cancer patients compared with cefepime treatment, especially in adult patients or patients with a short-term treatment period. This meta-analysis is practically important during antibiotic treatment in FN management.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">meta-analysis piperacillin/tazobactam</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">cefepime</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">febrile neutropenia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">cancer</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Agriculture</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">S</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Biology (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Xiao Chun</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Zhou Sixin</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wang Rui</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wang Li</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jia Liping</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ma Jinqiu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wang Na</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Bioscience Journal</subfield><subfield code="d">Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, 2020</subfield><subfield code="g">32(2016), 6</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)555692493</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2401404-7</subfield><subfield code="x">19813163</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:32</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:6</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.14393/BJ-v32n1a2016-33340</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/bbf86301f3354ad88b51f80f89bdfba9</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.seer.ufu.br/index.php/biosciencejournal/article/view/33340</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1981-3163</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">32</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">6</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.4028025

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

A meta-analysis of piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime treatment in cancer patients with febrile neutropenia

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?