Guideline-Concordant Therapy for Community-Acquired Pneumonia in the Hospitalized Population: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background A commonly used guideline for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is the joint American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America practice guideline. We aimed to investigate the effect of guideline-concordant therapy in the treatment of CAP. Methods We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus from 2007 to December 2023. We screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. Primary outcomes were mortality rates, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and length of stay. Secondary outcomes were guideline adherence, readmission, clinical cure rate, and adverse complications. We performed random-effect meta-analysis to estimate the overall effect size and assessed heterogeneity using the I2 statistics. Results We included 17 observational studies and 82 240 patients, of which 10 studies were comparative and pooled in meta-analysis. Overall guideline adherence rate was 65.2%. Guideline-concordant therapy was associated with a statistically significant reduction in 30-day mortality rate (crude odds ratio [OR], 0.49 [95% confidence interval .34–.70; I2 = 60%]; adjusted OR, 0.49 [.37–.65; I2 = 52%]) and in-hospital mortality rate (crude OR, 0.63 [.43–.92]; I2 = 61%). Due to significant heterogeneity, we could not assess the effect of guideline-concordant therapy on length of stay, ICU admission, readmission, clinical cure rate, and adverse complications. Conclusions In hospitalized patients with CAP, guideline-concordant therapy was associated with a significant reduction in mortality rate compared with nonconcordant therapy; however, there was limited evidence to support guideline-concordant therapy for other clinical outcomes. Future studies are needed to assess the clinical efficacy and safety of current guideline recommendations.
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 | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".