MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402457480 · doi:10.1186/s12903-024-04814-5

Association between removable prosthesis-wearing and pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4402457480 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tong Wah Lim, Kar Yan Li, Michael F. Burrow, Colman McGrath

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Oral Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryOdds ratioMEDLINESubgroup analysisPublication biasSystematic reviewProsthesisPneumoniaOral and maxillofacial surgeryRandomized controlled trialDentistryInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background A high burden of respiratory pathogens colonizing removable prosthesis surfaces suggests the potential of association between removable prosthesis-wearing and respiratory infections. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the evidence from clinical studies concerning the association between removable prosthesis-wearing and respiratory infections. Methods Clinical studies that reported respiratory infections associated with adult patients wearing removable prostheses in any centers (hospitals and nursing homes) or communities were included. Literature was searched across five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus) to 28 May 2024. An additional search was performed for unpublished trials and references cited in related studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was employed for the quality assessment. The certainty assessment was established using GRADE. The results were pooled using a frequentist random-effects meta-analysis and the odds ratios generated. Results A total of 1143 articles were identified. Thirteen articles had full-text articles screening and an additional two articles were added through reference linkage. Ultimately, six non-randomized clinical studies reporting various types of pneumonia contributed to this review. Overall odds of having pneumonia among prosthesis wearers were 1.43 (95% CI: 0.76 to 2.69) and 1.27 (95% CI: 1.11 to 1.46) using the random- and fixed-effects models, respectively. The heterogeneity in the meta-analysis was substantial. In subgroup analysis according to the study design, the heterogeneity within prospective studies was much reduced, I 2 = 0% ( p = 0.355). The certainty of the evidence evaluated using the GRADE approach was low to very low evidence for prosthesis wearers developing pneumonia based on studies. Conclusions There was no conclusive evidence from the non-randomized clinical studies supporting whether prosthesis-wearing is a risk factor for pneumonia based on outcomes from this review.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.268
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Oral HealthSame topicInfection Control in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207