Surgical site infection and its associated factors in Ethiopia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Despite being a preventable complication of surgical procedures, surgical site infections (SSIs) continue to threaten public health with significant impacts on the patients and the health-care human and financial resources. With millions affected globally, there issignificant variation in the primary studies on the prevalence of SSIs in Ethiopia. Therefore, this study aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of SSI and its associated factors among postoperative patients in Ethiopia. Methods PubMed, Scopus, Psyinfo, African Journals Online, and Google Scholar were searched for studies that looked at SSI in postoperative patients. A funnel plot and Egger’s regression test were used to determine publication bias. The I 2 statistic was used to check heterogeneity between the studies. DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was applied to estimate the pooled effect size, odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence interval (CIs) across studies. The subgroup analysis was conducted by region, sample size, and year of publication. Sensitivity analysis was deployed to determine the effect of a single study on the overall estimation. Analysis was done using STATA™ Version 14 software. Result A total of 24 studies with 13,136 study participants were included in this study. The estimated pooled prevalence of SSI in Ethiopia was 12.3% (95% CI: 10.19, 14.42). Duration of surgery > 1 hour (AOR = 1.78; 95% CI: 1.08 –2.94), diabetes mellitus (AOR = 3.25; 95% CI: 1.51–6.99), American Society of Anaesthesiologists score >1 (AOR = 2.51; 95% CI: 1.07–5.91), previous surgery (AOR = 2.5; 95% CI: 1.77–3.53), clean-contaminated wound (AOR = 2.15; 95% CI: 1.52–3.04), and preoperative hospital stay > 7 day (AOR = 5.76; 95% CI: 1.15–28.86), were significantly associated with SSI. Conclusion The prevalence of SSI among postoperative patients in Ethiopia remains high with a pooled prevalence of 12.3% in 24 extracted studies. Therefore, situation based interventions and region context-specific preventive strategies should be developed to reduce the prevalence of SSI among postoperative patients.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".