Is monotherapy for febrile neutropenia still a viable alternative?

Clicks: 466
ID: 111391
1999
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Popular

Ranked #45 of 552 articles by views in Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 552 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Monotherapy for empirical treatment of febrile neutropenia is effective and often less costly than combination therapy but remains controversial. The controversy results from observations that combination therapy for Pseudomonas aeruginosa improved outcomes, and this approach became a standard. Many …
Reference Key
r1999clinicalis Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Ramphal R;;
Journal Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
Year 1999
DOI
DOI not found
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.