COPD in Africa: risk factors, hospitalisation, readmission and associated outcomes—a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This review aims to synthesise available evidence on the prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), associated risk factors, hospitalisations and COPD readmissions in Africa. METHOD: Using the Met-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies guideline, electronic databases were searched from inception to 1 October 2021. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Evidence from retrieved articles was synthesised, and a random-effect model meta-analysis was conducted. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, with 13 included in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of COPD varied between the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (2%-24%), American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society (1%-17%) and Medical Research Council chronic bronchitis (2%-11%) criteria, respectively. Increasing age, wheezing and asthma were consistent risk factors for COPD from studies included in the narrative synthesis. Our meta-analysis indicated that prior tuberculosis ((OR 5.98, 95% CI 4.18 to 8.56), smoking (OR 2.80, 95% CI: 2.19 to 3.59) and use of biomass fuel (OR 1.52, 95% CI: 1.39 to 1.67)) were significant risk factors for COPD. Long-term oxygen therapy (HR 4.97, 95% CI (1.04 to 23.74)) and frequent hospitalisation (≥3 per year) (HR 11.48, 95% CI (1.31 to 100.79)) were risk factors associated with 30-day COPD readmission. CONCLUSION: This study not only highlights specific risk factors for COPD risk in Africa but also demonstrates the paucity and absence of research in several countries in a continent with substantial COPD-related mortality. Our findings contribute towards the development of evidence-based clinical guidelines for COPD in Africa.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020210581.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".