Evidence Hub

Clinical features and prognostic predictors of C. Psittaci Pneumonia: a systematic review and individual patient meta-analysis

Qing-Qing Jia, Ji-Bo Sun, Dong-Guang Wang, Jiao Xu, Xiu Li, Shijie Zhang, Lian Wang, Sitong Liu et al.

BMC Pulmonary Medicine, 2025

13 citations

Abstract

The clinical presentations and prognostic indicators of C. psittaci pneumonia are inadequately investigated currently. The objective of the study was to assess the clinical presentation of C. psittaci pneumonia and the risk factors for severe pneumonia, within a systematic review and individual patient meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, CNKI, and Wanfang databases for case reports/series of proven/probable psittacosis published between 1st January 2000 and 28th February 2023, including all hospitalized individuals aged ≥ 18 years. Patient demographics, manifestations, diagnostic methods, and outcomes were summarized descriptively. Patients were divided into severe or non-severe pneumonia groups mainly according to the ATS/IDSA 2007 criteria. Prognostic predictors for severe C. psittaci pneumonia were identified using multivariate logistic regression. 3062 articles of 196 (566 individual patient cases) were included in the final analysis. Patients with chronic cardiovascular disease face a significantly elevated risk of developing severe C. psittaci pneumonia (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05–6.59; P = 0.039). Symptoms including dyspnea (aOR 4.88; 95% CI 3.19–7.46; P < 0.001), neuropsychiatric symptoms (aOR 3.58; 95% CI 2.05–6.28; P < 0.001), gastrointestinal symptoms (aOR 1.76; 95% CI 1.10–2.80; P = 0.018), or the presence of multilobar infiltrates on imaging (aOR 3.27; 95% CI 2.11–5.06; P < 0.001) upon admission frequently serve as…

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