Risk factors for hospital-acquired pneumonia in hip fracture patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis [RETRACTED]
Post-publication record
OpenAlex flags this work as retracted, but it carries no matching Retraction Watch record in this frame.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to comprehensively assess the prevalence and risk factors for Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) in hip fracture patients by meta-analysis. METHODS: Systematically searched 4 English databases and 4 Chinese databases from inception until October 20, 2022. All studies involving risk factors of HAP in patients with hip fractures will be considered. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. The results were presented through Review Manager 5.4 with the pooled odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: Of 35 articles included in this study, the incidence of HAP was 8.9%. 43 risk factors for HAP were initially included, 23 were eventually involved in the meta-analysis, and 21 risk factors were significant. Among them, the 4 most frequently mentioned risk factors were as follows: Advanced age (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05-1.10), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR 3.44, 95% CI 2.83-4.19), time from injury to operation (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.07-1.12), time from injury to operation ≥ 48 hours (OR 3.59, 95% CI 2.88-4.48), and hypoalbuminemia < 3.5g/dL (OR 2.68, 95% CI 2.15-3.36). DISCUSSION: Hip fracture patients diagnosed with COPD have a 3.44 times higher risk of HAP compared to the general hip fracture patients. The risk of HAP also increases with age, with patients over 70 having a 2.34-fold higher risk and those over 80 having a 2.98-fold higher risk. These findings highlight the need for tailored preventive measures and timely interventions in vulnerable patient populations. Additionally, hip fracture patients who wait more than 48 hours for surgery have a 3.59-fold higher incidence of HAP. This emphasizes the importance of swift surgical intervention to minimize HAP risk. However, there are limitations to consider in this study, such as heterogeneity in selected studies, inclusion of only factors identified through multivariate logistic regression, and the focus on non-randomized controlled trial studies.
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 | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".