Evidence Hub

Predictive value of lactate levels for mortality in pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Ziyun Hu, Yanfei Qiang, Xiaolin Yan

Journal of Infection in Developing Countries, 2025

4 citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Lactate levels, a marker of tissue hypoxia and metabolic acidosis, have been suggested as a prognostic indicator for patient outcomes in pneumonia. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to determine the predictive value of lactate levels for mortality in patients with pneumonia.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was done using CINAHL, SCOPUS, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect databases. Random-effect models were used to calculate pooled effect estimates, including sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratios. Heterogeneity, publication bias, and meta-regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies were included. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio for lactate levels in predicting mortality was 5 (95% CI: 3-8). The sensitivity and specificity were 61% (95% CI: 52 - 69%) and 78% (95% CI: 73 - 82%), respectively. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 2.7 (95% CI: 2.1-3.4) and 0.51 (95% CI: 0.40-0.64). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.72-0.82). Subgroup analysis showed that studies with lactate cut-off values between 1.2 and 2 mmol/L had better sensitivity, while studies with cut-off values greater than 2 mmol/L had higher specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Lactate levels have moderate predictive value for mortality in patients with pneumonia. This indicator may potentially aid in risk stratification and clinical decision-making. Further research is needed to…

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.

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