Association Between Cytomegalovirus Reactivation and Clinical Outcomes in Immunocompetent Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of our systematic review was to investigate the association between cytomegalovirus (CMV) reactivation and outcomes in immunocompetent critically ill patients. METHODS: We searched electronic databases and gray literature for original studies and abstracts published between 1990 and October 2016. The review was limited to studies including critically ill immunocompetent patients. Cytomegalovirus reactivation was defined as positive polymerase chain reaction, pp65 antigenemia, or viral culture from blood or bronchoalveolar lavage. Selected patient-centered outcomes included mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), and nosocomial infections. Health resource utilization outcomes included intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included. In our primary analysis, CMV reactivation was associated with increased ICU mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.87-3.47), overall mortality (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.60-2.56), duration of mechanical ventilation (mean difference 6.60 days; 95% CI, 3.09-10.12), nosocomial infections (OR, 3.20; 95% CI, 2.05-4.98), need for RRT (OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.31-4.31), and ICU length of stay (mean difference 8.18 days; 95% CI, 6.14-10.22). In addition, numerous sensitivity analyses were performed. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, CMV reactivation was associated with worse clinical outcomes and greater health resource utilization in critically ill patients. However, it remains unclear whether CMV reactivation plays a causal role or if it is a surrogate for more severe illness.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".