Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38839837›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2024

Utility of pneumonia severity assessment tools for mortality prediction in healthcare-associated pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shingo Noguchi, Masahiro Katsurada, Kazuhiro Yatera, Natsuki Nakagawa, Dongjie Xu, Yosuke Fukuda, Yuichiro Shindo, Kazuyoshi Senda, Hiroki Tsukada, Makoto Miki and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A rapid surveillance of pneumonia in hospitalized patients: an opportunity for intervention.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Shingo NoguchiDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan. sn0920@med.uoeh-u.ac.jp.
Masahiro KatsuradaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Kita-Harima Medical Center, Ono, Japan.
Kazuhiro YateraDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, University of Occupational and Environmental Health, Kitakyushu, Japan.
Natsuki NakagawaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, The University of Tokyo Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Dongjie XuDepartment of Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Japanese Red Cross Sendai Hospital, Sendai, Japan.
Yosuke FukudaDivision of Respiratory Medicine and Allergology, Department of Medicine, Showa University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Yuichiro ShindoDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, Nagoya, Japan.
Kazuyoshi SendaDepartment of Pharmacy, Kinjo Gakuin University, Nagoya, Japan.
Hiroki TsukadaDepartment of Infection Control, The Jikei University Kashiwa Hospital, Kashiwa, Japan.
Makoto MikiDepartment of Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine, Japanese Red Cross Sendai Hospital, Sendai, Japan.
Hiroshi MukaeUnit of Translational Medicine, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate prognostic tools for mortality in patients with healthcare-associated pneumonia (HCAP) are needed to provide appropriate medical care, but the efficacy for mortality prediction of tools like PSI, A-DROP, I-ROAD, and CURB-65, widely used for predicting mortality in community-acquired and hospital-acquired pneumonia cases, remains controversial. In this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis using PubMed, Cochrane Library (trials), and Ichushi web database (accessed on August 22, 2022). We identified articles evaluating either PSI, A-DROP, I-ROAD, or CURB-65 and the mortality outcome in patients with HCAP, and calculated the pooled sensitivities, specificities, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and the summary area under the curves (AUCs) for mortality prediction. Additionally, the differences in predicting prognosis among these four assessment tools were evaluated using overall AUCs pooled from AUC values reported in included studies. Eventually, 21 articles were included and these quality assessments were evaluated by QUADAS-2. Using a cut-off value of moderate in patients with HCAP, the range of pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were found to be 0.91-0.97, 0.15-0.44, 1.14-1.66, 0.18-0.33, and 3.86-9.32, respectively. Upon using a cut-off value of severe in those patients, the range of pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, and DOR were 0.63-0.70, 0.54-0.66, 1.50-2.03, 0.47-0.58, and 2.66-4.32, respectively. Overall AUCs were 0.70 (0.68-0.72), 0.70 (0.63-0.76), 0.68 (0.64-0.73), and 0.67 (0.63-0.71), respectively, for PSI, A-DROP, I-ROAD, and CURB-65 (p = 0.66). In conclusion, these severity assessment tools do not have enough ability to predict mortality in HCAP patients. Furthermore, there are no significant differences in predictive performance among these four severity assessment tools.

Indexed as

Healthcare-Associated PneumoniaSeverity of Illness IndexArea Under CurveHumansPrognosisMortalityNursing- and healthcare-associated pneumoniaNursing home-acquired pneumoniaPrognosisSeverity score

Identifiers

PMID38839837
PMCPMC11153623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.