MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403066827 · doi:10.1016/j.jcrc.2024.154922

Risk factors and outcomes of ventilator-associated pneumonia in patients with traumatic brain injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4403066827 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Diego Enrique Prieto-Alvarado, Henry Mauricio Parada-Gereda, Yamil Liscano, Giovanna Patricia Rivas Tafurt, Joan-Ramon Masclans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Critical Care · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNosocomial Infections in ICU
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad Santiago de Cali
KeywordsMedicineTraumatic brain injuryVentilator-associated pneumoniaMeta-analysisPneumoniaIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a common complication in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients, which increases morbidity and negatively affects outcomes. Risk factors and outcomes in these patients remain controversial. The aim of the present study is to explore the risk factors and clinical outcomes of patients with VAP and TBI. Two researchers conducted independent systematic literature searches of Pubmed, Cochrane Database, Scopus, Medline Ovid, Science Direct databases, published from inception to January 2024. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess study quality. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model when heterogeneity I 2 > 50 % and a fixed-effects model when I 2 < 50 %; in addition, a subgroup analysis was performed to explore VAP risk factors, and publication bias was assessed with the funnel plot and Begg's and Egger's tests. All results were considered statistically significant when p < 0.05. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology. Twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 2883 patients. Male gender [OR 1.58 (95 % CI 1.23, 2.02) p < 0.05 I 2 0 %] and abbreviated injury scale (head: H-AIS) [≥ 3 OR 2.79 (95 % CI 1.58, 4.93) p < 0.05 I 2 0 %] increased the risk of VAP. After subgroup analysis, blood transfusion on admission [OR 1.97 (95 % CI 1.16–3.35) p ≤0.05 I 2 5 %] and barbiturate infusion [OR 3.55 (95 % CI 2.01–6.30) p ≤0.05 I 2 0 %] became risk factors. Prophylactic antibiotic use [OR 0.67 (95 % CI 0.51–0.88) p ≤0.05 I 2 0 %] and younger age MD -3.29 (95 % CI -5.18, −1.40) p ≤0.05 I 2 41 %] emerged as significant protective factors. In VAP patients ICU stay [MD 7.02 (95 % CI 6.05–7.99) p ≤0.05 I 2 37 %], duration of mechanical ventilation [MD 5.79 (95 % CI 4.40, 7.18) p ≤0.05 I 2 79 %] and hospital stay [MD 11.88 (95 % CI 8.71–15.05) p ≤0.05 I 2 0 %] were significantly increased. The certainty of the evidence was moderate-high for the outcomes studied. Male gender, H-AIS ≥ 3, blood transfusion on admission, and barbiturate infusion were risk factors for VAP. In patients with VAP, ICU stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital stay were significantly increased. • Male gender, AIS head ≥ 3, transfusion on admission, and barbiturate infusion raised the risk of VAP. • Prophylactic use of antibiotics and younger age were significant protective factors. • In patients with VAP, ICU stay, duration of mechanical ventilation and hospital stay were significantly increased. • VAP did not increase mortality in TBI patients in the intensive care unit.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.002
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.350 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Critical CareSame topicNosocomial Infections in ICUFrench-language works237,207