MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412134829 · doi:10.5498/wjp.v15.i7.104812

Meta-analysis of the incidence and risk factors of postoperative delirium in organ transplant patients

2025· article· en· W4412134829 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jun Liu, Pengfei Qiao, Li Huang, Fei Liu, Yue Liu, Tingting Jia, Hongliang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOrgan transplantationOdds ratioIncidence (geometry)TransplantationInternal medicineRandomized controlled trialLiver transplantationMeta-analysisConfidence intervalLung transplantationObservational studySurgeryIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium (POD) is a concerning complication of organ transplantation. With organ transplantation offering hope to patients with end-stage organ disease, understanding the incidence and risk factors of POD is crucial, as it can significantly affect patients' prognosis and healthcare costs. AIM: To systematically evaluate the incidence and risk factors of POD following organ transplantation to facilitate clinical prevention and optimize patient management and prognosis. METHODS: Multiple databases such as PubMed and their reference lists were comprehensively searched using a combination of keywords related to organ transplantation and POD. Relevant observational studies on patients who had undergone solid organ transplantation and randomized controlled trials containing relevant analyses were included. Duplicated, data-deficient, non-English, and non-original data studies were excluded. Data were extracted independently by two researchers and then cross-checked. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies. RevMan 5.3 was employed for data analysis. The pooled incidence of POD was calculated according to the data type, and the fixed or random effect model was employed to analyze risk factors based on heterogeneity. Subsequently, sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessments were performed. RESULTS: A total of 39 relevant literatures were included. The overall incidence of POD in the organ transplant group was 20% [95% confidence interval (CI): 18%-22%]; liver transplant group, 22% (95%CI: 17%-26%); lung transplant group, 34% (95%CI: 23%-45%); and kidney transplant group, 6% (95%CI: 2%-10%). Primary graft dysfunction increased the POD risk, with a pooled odds ratio (OR) (95%CI) of 1.78 (1.09-2.91). A history of hepatic encephalopathy increased the POD risk, with a pooled OR (95%CI) of 3.19 (2.30-4.43). The higher the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, the greater the POD risk, with a pooled OR (95%CI) of 1.52 (1.09-2.12). A history of alcohol abuse increased the POD risk, with a pooled OR (95%CI) of 2.84 (1.74-4.65). Thus, the higher the model for end-stage liver disease score, the greater the POD risk, with a pooled OR (95%CI) of 2.49 (1.14-5.43). POD was more likely to develop in patients with preoperative infections, with a pooled OR (95%CI) of 2.78 (1.56-4.97). The use of diuretics increased the POD risk, with a pooled OR (95%CI) of 2.36 (1.38-4.04). CONCLUSION: In this study, the overall incidence of POD in patients who underwent organ transplantation is 20%. The incidence varies among different types of organ transplantation, and multiple factors can increase the POD risk.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of PsychiatrySame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207