MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409904954 · doi:10.1186/s12959-025-00728-6

The prevalence and risk factors of pulmonary embolism in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4409904954 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mingzhu Li, Ying Xu, Quan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueThrombosis Journal · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary diseaseMeta-analysisPulmonary embolismAngiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineDiseaseSystematic reviewHematologyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An increased prevalence of PE has been found in patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(AECOPD). Early identification of risk factors for the development of PE in patients with AECOPD and intervention is important. Therefore, we comprehensively pool and analyze the prevalence and risk factors of PE among patients experiencing AECOPD, aiming to provide valuable insights for clinical-based diagnostic determination and prevention of PE in the AECOPD patient population. A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting the incidence and risk factors for PE in patients with AECOPD. Study quality was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The degree of heterogeneity was assessed by the I2 statistic. The publication bias (studies ≥ 10) was evaluated using Egger’s test. Among the 1421 studies initially retrieved, 22 articles were ultimately selected and incorporated into the analysis. Based on the meta-analysis and the review’s updated findings, the prevalence of PE in AECOPD is 17.82% (95% CI 12.72%-23.57%, P<0.001). The following factors were identified as risk factors for PE among patients with AECOPD: age(weighted mean difference [WMD] 2.0119, 95% CI 0.7126–3.3133, I2 = 51.8%, P = 0.02), males(odds ratio [OR] 0.9528, 95% CI 0.6869–1.3216, I2 = 65.0%, P<0.001), obesity(OR 1.3086, 95% CI 0.1895–9.0385, I2 = 74.5%, P = 0.02), malignant disease(OR 1.5902, 95%CI 0.9689–2.6097, I2 = 54.7%, P = 0.03), hypertension(OR 1.0663, 95%CI 0.7920–1.4355, I2 = 57.7%, P = 0.009), immobilization ≥ 3d(OR 3.9158, 95% CI 1.0925–14.0354, I2 = 91.6%, P<0.001), edema of lower limb(OR 2.1558, 95% CI 1.3365–3.4773, I2 = 75.4%, P<0.001), pulmonary hypertension(OR 1.3146, 95%CI 0.7481-2.3100, I2 = 70.1%, P = 0.04), cough(OR 0.7084, 95%CI 0.1304–3.8497, I2 = 88.8%, P<0.001), purulent sputum(OR 0.7570, 95%CI 0.4005–1.4309, I2 = 61.9%, P = 0.049), and D-dimer(WMD 0.8619, 95%CI 0.0449–1.6789, I2 = 91.4%, P<0.001), C-reactive protein(CRP)(WMD 0.8852, 95%CI -4.0639-5.8344, I2 = 76.4%, P = 0.005) or fibrinogen(WMD 0.8663, 95%CI -0.2572-1.9898, I2 = 92.2%, P<0.001) levels. Clinical risk factors(including S1Q3 pattern on electrocardiograph(ECG), hospital stay and home oxygen therapy) showed no significant association with the occurrence of PE (P>0.05). This updated meta-analysis and systematic review revealed that the prevalence of pulmonary embolism in the AECOPD was 17.82%. This figure may vary depending on how the diagnostic procedure is carried out. Age, males, obesity, malignant disease, hypertension, immobilization ≥ 3d, edema of lower limb, pulmonary hypertension, cough, purulent sputum, and D-dimer, CRP or fibrinogen level may serve as potential risk factors for PE among patients with AECOPD.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.748
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.002
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThrombosis JournalSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207