Initial Management of Low-Risk Pediatric Fever and Neutropenia: Efficacy and Safety, Costs, Quality-of-Life Considerations, and Preferences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Initial management options for pediatric low-risk fever and neutropenia (FN) include outpatient compared with inpatient management and oral compared with intravenous therapy. Single-arm and randomized trials have been conducted in children. Meta-analyses provide support for the equivalence of outpatient and inpatient approaches. Outpatient oral management may be associated with a higher risk of readmission compared with outpatient intravenous management in children with FN, although other outcomes such as treatment failure and discontinuation of the regimen because of adverse effects were similar. Importantly, there have been no reported deaths among low-risk children treated as outpatients or with oral antibiotics. Costs, whether derived directly or through cost-effectiveness analysis, are consistently reduced when an outpatient approach is used. Quality of life (QoL) and preferences should be considered in order to evaluate different strategies, plan programs, and anticipate uptake of outpatient programs. Using parent-proxy report, child QoL is consistently higher with outpatient approaches, although research evaluating child self-report is limited. Preferences incorporate estimated QoL, but, in addition, factor in issues such as costs, fear, anxiety, and logistical issues. Only approximately 50% of parents prefer outpatient management. Future research should develop tools to facilitate outpatient care and to measure caregiver burden associated with this strategy. Additional work should also focus on eliciting child preferences for outpatient management. Finally, studies of effectiveness of an ambulatory approach in the real-world setting outside of clinical trials are important.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".