Evidence Hub

Clinical predictors and mortality of postoperative pneumonia following pulmonary resection in patients with lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Milad Sheervalilou, Mostafa Ghanei, Masoud Arabfard

Lung India, 2026

21,104 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Postoperative pneumonia (POP) represents a significant complication in lung cancer (LC) patients following lung resection, contributing to poor outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify clinical predictors and outcomes of POP in LC. A systematic search was conducted in EBSCOhost, Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science, with screening and reporting following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Meta-analyses were performed in Jamovi 2.3.28, reporting results as odds ratios (OR) or standardised mean differences (SMD). Egger’s test and Fail-safe N were used to assess publication bias and evidence robustness (PROSPERO: CRD42024551104). A total of 17 studies encompassing 21,104 LC patients (1,610 with POP and 19,494 without) were included. Reduced FEV1 (SMD: −0.48, 95%CI: [− 0.61, −0.36], P < 0.001) predicted POP. Surgical predictors of POP included VATS (OR: 0.575, 95%CI: [0.448, 0.737], P < 0.001), segmentectomy (OR: 0.459, 95%CI: [0.261, 0.805], P = 0.007), wedge resection (OR: 1.828, 95%CI: [1.189, 2.809], P = 0.006), lobectomy (OR: 0.626, 95%CI: [0.488, 0.803], P < 0.001), bilobectomy (OR: 2.367, 95%CI: [1.408, 3.979], P = 0.001), and pneumonectomy (OR: 1.750, 95%CI: [1.178, 2.600], P = 0.006). Left lung tumours increased POP risk (OR: 1.254, 95%CI: [1.050, 1.499], P = 0.013), while right lung tumours were protective (OR: 0.801, 95%CI: [0.670, 0.975], P = 0.015). POP was associated with…

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: 21,104 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