Risk Factors for Post-Operative Pulmonary Infection in Patients With Brain Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aims to analyze the risk factors for post-operative pulmonary infection in patients with brain tumors by meta-analysis to provide a reference for its prevention. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Ovid, and four Chinese databases (CNKI, SinoMed, VIP, and Wanfang databases) were searched for studies covering risk factors of pulmonary infection in patients with brain tumors, limited to the duration from the dates of inception of the respective databases to December 31, 2022. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the evidence. A meta-analysis of the factors affecting the incidence of pulmonary infection was performed using Revman 5.4 software. Results: Twelve studies were selected, covering 35,615 patients with brain tumors, among whom pulmonary infection occurred in 1,635 cases with an accumulated incidence of 4.6%, including 38 related risk factors. Meta-analysis results indicated: history of chronic pulmonary disease (odds ratio [OR], 5.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34–24.51; p = 0.02], diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.29–1.95; p < 0.0001), history of cardiovascular disease (OR, 3.97; 95% CI, 2.18–7.24; p < 0.00001), age ≥60 years (OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.12–2.15; p = 0.009)], operation time ≥3 hours (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00–1.05; p = 0.03], Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score <13 (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.90–6.46; p < 0.0001), and the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (ASA) ≥3 (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.68–2.46; p < 0.00001) as independent risk factors. Conclusions: History of chronic pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, history of cardiovascular disease, age ≥60 years, operation time ≥3 hours, GCS score <13, and the ASA grade ≥3 are independent risk factors for post-operative pulmonary infection in patients with brain tumors, which nursing staff should be aware of.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 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".