MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401332184 · doi:10.1186/s13643-024-02621-1

Predictors of mortality in severe pneumonia patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4401332184 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kai Xie, Sheng-Nan Guan, Xinxin Kong, Wenshuai Ji, Chen Du, Mingyan Jia, Haifeng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHenan UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioConfidence intervalMeta-analysisInternal medicinePneumoniaCochrane LibraryARDSSeptic shockComorbiditySepsisLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Severe pneumonia has consistently been associated with high mortality. We sought to identify risk factors for the mortality of severe pneumonia to assist in reducing mortality for medical treatment. Methods Electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched till June 1, 2023. All human research were incorporated into the analysis, regardless of language, publication date, or geographical location. To pool the estimate, a mixed-effect model was used. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was employed for assessing the quality of included studies that were included in the analysis. Results In total, 22 studies with a total of 3655 severe pneumonia patients and 1107 cases (30.29%) of death were included in the current meta-analysis. Significant associations were found between age [5.76 years, 95% confidence interval [CI] (3.43, 8.09), P < 0.00001], male gender [odds ratio (OR) = 1.47, 95% CI (1.07, 2.02), P = 0.02], and risk of death from severe pneumonia. The comorbidity of neoplasm [OR = 3.37, 95% CI (1.07, 10.57), P = 0.04], besides the presence of complications such as diastolic hypotension [OR = 2.60, 95% CI (1.45, 4.67), P = 0.001], ALI/ARDS [OR = 3.63, 95% CI (1.78, 7.39), P = 0.0004], septic shock [OR = 9.43, 95% CI (4.39, 20.28), P < 0.00001], MOF [OR = 4.34, 95% CI (2.36, 7.95), P < 0.00001], acute kidney injury [OR = 2.45, 95% CI (1.14, 5.26), P = 0.02], and metabolic acidosis [OR = 5.88, 95% CI (1.51, 22.88), P = 0.01] were associated with significantly higher risk of death among patients with severe pneumonia. Those who died, compared with those who survived, differed on multiple biomarkers on admission including serum creatinine [Scr: + 67.77 mmol/L, 95% CI (47.21, 88.34), P < 0.00001], blood urea nitrogen [BUN: + 6.26 mmol/L, 95% CI (1.49, 11.03), P = 0.01], C-reactive protein [CRP: + 33.09 mg/L, 95% CI (3.01, 63.18), P = 0.03], leukopenia [OR = 2.63, 95% CI (1.34, 5.18), P = 0.005], sodium < 136 mEq/L [OR = 2.63, 95% CI (1.34, 5.18), P = 0.005], albumin [− 5.17 g/L, 95% CI (− 7.09, − 3.25), P < 0.00001], PaO 2 /FiO 2 [− 55.05 mmHg, 95% CI (− 60.11, − 50.00), P < 0.00001], arterial blood PH [− 0.09, 95% CI (− 0.15, − 0.04), P = 0.0005], gram-negative microorganism [OR = 2.56, 95% CI (1.17, 5.62), P = 0.02], and multilobar or bilateral involvement [OR = 3.65, 95% CI (2.70, 4.93), P < 0.00001]. Conclusions Older age and male gender might face a greater risk of death in severe pneumonia individuals. The mortality of severe pneumonia may also be significantly impacted by complications such diastolic hypotension, ALI/ARDS, septic shock, MOF, acute kidney injury, and metabolic acidosis, as well as the comorbidity of neoplasm, and laboratory indicators involving Scr, BUN, CRP, leukopenia, sodium, albumin, PaO 2 /FiO 2 , arterial blood PH, gram-negative microorganism, and multilobar or bilateral involvement. Systematic review registration PROSPERO Protocol Number: CRD 42023430684.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.044
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.139
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic ReviewsSame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207