Evidence Hub

Risk factors for pneumonia after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Fan S, Jiang H, Xu Q, Shen J, Lin H, Yang L, Yu D, Zheng N et al.

BMC cancer, 2025

20,840 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

Objective: The objective is to systematically gather relevant research to determine and quantify the risk factors and pooled prevalence for pneumonia after a radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

Methods: The reporting procedures of this meta-analysis conformed to the PRISMA 2020. Chinese Wan Fang data, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Periodical Full-text Database (VIP), Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to January 20, 2024, were systematically searched for cohort or case-control studies that reported particular risk factors for pneumonia after radical gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The pooled prevalence of pneumonia was estimated alongside risk factor analysis. The quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale after the chosen studies had been screened and the data retrieved. RevMan 5.4 and R 4.4.2 were the program used to perform the meta-analysis.

Results: Our study included data from 20,840 individuals across 27 trials. The pooled prevalence of postoperative pneumonia was 11.0% (95% CI = 8.0% ~ 15.0%). Fifteen risk factors were statistically significant, according to pooled analyses. Several factors were identified to be strong risk factors, including smoking history (OR 2.71, 95% CI = 2.09 ~ 3.50, I2 = 26%), prolonged postoperative nasogastric tube retention (OR 2.25, 95% CI = 1.36-3.72, I2 = 63%), intraoperative bleeding ≥ 200 ml (OR 2.21, 95% CI = 1.15-4.24, I2 = 79%),…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 20,840 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free