Nondrug Intervention for Opportunistic Infections in Individuals With Hematological Malignancy: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hematological malignancies disturb the blood, lymph nodes, and bone marrow. Taking medications for treating opportunistic infections (OIs) in these individuals may enhance the risk of medication interaction as well as adverse drug reactions. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of nondrug interventions in reducing OIs among patients with hematological cancers. METHODS: The PubMed, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Embase databases were searched on December 26, 2022, for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary endpoint was OIs. The quality of included studies was assessed by the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. RESULTS: A total of 6 studies were included in this review with 4 interventions: (1) types of mouthwash received, (2) presence of coating on central venous catheters (CVCs), (3) use of well-fitted masks, and (4) types of diet consumed. The results were presented in 8 different comparisons: (1) chlorhexidine-nystatin versus saline mouth rinse, (2) chlorhexidine versus saline mouth rinse, (3) nystatin versus saline mouth rinse, (4) chlorhexidine silver sulfadiazine-coated CVCs versus uncoated catheters, (5) well-fitted masks versus no mask, (6) amine fluoride-stannous fluoride versus sodium fluoride mouthwash, (7) low-bacterial diet versus standard hospital diet, and (8) herbal versus placebo mouthwash. No clear differences were reported in any of the outcomes examined in the first 3 comparisons. There were also no clear differences in the rate of catheter-related bloodstream infection or insertion site infection between the use of chlorhexidine silver sulfadiazine-coated CVCs versus uncoated catheters in the patients. Further, no significant differences were seen between patients who used a well-fitted mask and those without a mask in the incidence of OI. The all-cause mortality and mortality due to OI were similar between the 2 groups. There was no clear difference in all-cause mortality, although common adverse effects were reported in patients who used sodium fluoride mouthwash compared with those using amine fluoride-stannous fluoride mouthwash. There was no evidence of any difference in the incidence of possible invasive aspergillosis or candidemia between patients who consumed a low-bacterial diet and a standard diet. For the last comparison, no significant difference was seen between patients who received herbal and placebo mouthwash. CONCLUSIONS: Very limited evidence was available to measure the effectiveness of nondrug interventions in hematological cancers. The effectiveness of the interventions included in this review needs to be evaluated further in high-quality RCTs in a dedicated setting among patients with hematological malignancies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020169186; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=169186.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".