Long-term outcomes for epidemic viral pneumonia survivors after discharge from the intensive care unit: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the long-term outcomes (functional status and psychological sequelae) of survivors of critical illnesses due to epidemic viral pneumonia before the COVID-19 pandemic and to establish a benchmark for comparison of the COVID-19 long-term outcomes. METHODS: This systematic review of clinical studies reported the long-term outcomes in adults admitted to intensive care units who were diagnosed with viral epidemic pneumonia. An electronic search was performed using databases: MEDLINE®, Web of Science™, LILACS/IBECS, and EMBASE. Additionally, complementary searches were conducted on the reference lists of eligible studies. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The results were grouped into tables and textual descriptions. RESULTS: The final analysis included 15 studies from a total of 243 studies. This review included 771 patients with Influenza A, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. It analyzed the quality of life, functionality, lung function, mortality, rate of return to work, rehospitalization, and psychiatric symptoms. The follow-up periods ranged from 1 to 144 months. We found that the quality of life, functional capacity, and pulmonary function were below expected standards. CONCLUSION: This review revealed great heterogeneity between studies attributed to different scales, follow-up time points, and methodologies. However, this systematic review identified negative long-term effects on patient outcomes. Given the possibility of future pandemics, it is essential to identify the long-term effects of viral pneumonia outbreaks. This review was not funded. Prospero database registration: (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero) under registration ID CRD42021190296.
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 | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".