SynthesisEuropean respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society2025
Factors driving outcome variability in aspiration and community-acquired pneumonia: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical research advances in pulmonary infections in 2025: a narrative review of multipathogen assessment, precision diagnosis, and integrated management.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAspiration community-acquired pneumonia (ACAP) is common among older adults and is associated with worse outcomes than nonaspiration community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Understanding these differences is essential for improving patient care.
objectivesTo determine the prevalence of ACAP among pneumonia patients and compare clinical outcomes, including hospital length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and mortality rates, between patients with ACAP and those with CAP.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following MOOSE (Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Literature searches in PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar from January 1995 to January 2024 identified studies involving adults diagnosed with CAP or ACAP. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses were conducted to identify sources of heterogeneity.
results49 samples from 44 studies were included, encompassing 1 277 615 older adults (mean age 80.2 years). The pooled prevalence of ACAP was 25% (95% CI 19-31) and higher in studies with a mean age of 70 years or older at 32% (95% CI 25-39). Compared to CAP patients, those with ACAP had significantly longer hospital stays (mean difference 4.92 days, 95% CI 4.71-5.14), increased ICU admissions (risk ratio 2.33, 95% CI 1.77-3.07), higher in-hospital mortality (risk ratio 2.14, 95% CI 1.73-2.65), higher 30-day mortality (risk ratio 2.56, 95% CI 2.12-3.1), higher 1-year mortality (risk ratio 1.96, 95% CI 1.44-2.66) and greater recurrence rates (risk ratio 1.75, 95% CI 1.44-2.66). Meta-regression identified publication year, patient age, study design, nursing home residency and compliance with therapeutic guidelines as significant moderators explaining heterogeneity.
conclusionsPatients with ACAP experience significantly worse clinical outcomes than those with CAP. These findings highlight the importance of early identification and management of aspiration risks, adherence to therapeutic guidelines and the need for standardised diagnostic criteria to improve outcomes in this vulnerable population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.