A systematic review and meta-analysis for risk factor profiles in patients with resistant Acinetobacter baumannii infection relative to control patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acinetobacter baumannii is a major cause of nosocomial infections and high mortality rates. Evaluation of risk factors for such resistant infections may aid surveillance and diagnostic initiatives, as well as, can be crucial in early and appropriate antibiotic therapy. OBJECTIVE: To identify the risk factors in patients with resistant A. baumannii infection with respect to controls. METHODS: Prospective or retrospective cohort and case-control studies reporting the risk factors for resistant A. baumannii infection were collected through two data sources, MEDLINE/PubMed and OVID/Embase. Studies published in the English language were included while animal studies were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of studies. The odds ratio of developing antibiotic resistance in patients with A. baumannii infection was pooled using a random-effect model. RESULTS: The results are based on 38 studies with 60878 participants (6394 cases and 54484 controls). A total of 28, 14, 25, and 11 risk factors were identified for multi-drug resistant (MDRAB), extensive-drug resistant (XDRAB), carbapenem-resistant (CRAB) and imipenem resistant A. baumannii infection (IRAB), respectively. In the MDRAB infection group, exposure to carbapenem (OR 5.51; 95% CI: 3.88-7.81) and tracheostomy (OR 5.01; 95% CI: 2.12-11.84) were identified with maximal pool odd's ratio. While previous use of amikacin (OR 4.94; 95% CI: 1.89-12.90) and exposure to carbapenem (OR 4.91; 95% CI: 2.65-9.10) were the foremost factors associated with developing CRAB infection. Further analysis revealed, mechanical ventilation (OR 7.21; 95% CI: 3.79-13.71) and ICU stay (OR 5.88; 95% CI: 3.27-10.57) as the most significant factors for XDRAB infection. CONCLUSION: The exposure of carbapenem, amikacin (previous) and mechanical ventilation were the most significant risk factors for multidrug, extensive-drug, and carbapenem resistance in patients with A. baumannii infection respectively. These findings may guide to control and prevent resistant infections by identifying the patients at higher risk of developing resistance.
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 | 0.013 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".