Evidence Hub

Microbiological characterization of bacteremia in patients with chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia: systematic review and meta-analysis

Alvarez Franklin Correa, Paola Guasti, Luis Fuenmayor-González, Harold Alexander-León, Y. Liu, Johana Elizabeth Salgado-Apunte, Jorge González Grijalva, Hernan Sánchez et al.

Therapeutic Advances in Infectious Disease, 2025

23,319 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is the most common and serious adverse event of chemotherapy for solid and hematological neoplasms, with infection as a major complication. FN occurs in 10%–50% of patients with solid tumors and over 80% with hematological malignancies, with mortality rates up to 11%. Objective: To characterize bloodstream pathogens in post-chemotherapy FN through a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published from 2013 to February 13, 2024. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources and methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase were searched using MeSH, Emtree, and keywords. Risk of bias was assessed using the JBI checklist. Random-effects proportions meta-analysis was performed. Results: Twenty-two studies ( n = 23,319) reported 8665 positive blood cultures: 59% Gram-negative (95% CI: 46.8–67.5), 39.7% Gram-positive (95% CI: 31.3–48.2), and 2.5% fungi (95% CI: 0.9–4.1). Random-effects meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity ( I 2 = 98.92%, p < 0.01). Meta-regression by sample size, economic development, and risk of bias did not explain this variability. Conclusion: Gram-negative pathogens slightly predominate over Gram-positives in bloodstream infections among post-chemotherapy FN patients. Trial registration: PROSPERO (CRD42023472191).

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 23,319 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free