Evidence Hub

Comparison of six risk scores for stroke-associated pneumonia in patients with acute ischemic stroke: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Xuemin Zhang, Lu Xiao, Li-Qing Niu, Yongchao Tian, Kuang-Hung Chen

Frontiers in Medicine, 2022

42,236 participants · 19 citations

Abstract

Background Stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP) is one of the major causes of death after suffering a stroke. Several scoring systems have been developed for the early prediction of SAP. However, it is unclear which scoring system is more suitable as a risk prediction tool. We performed this Bayesian network meta-analysis to compare the prediction accuracy of these scoring systems. Methods Seven databases were searched from their inception up to April 8, 2022. The risk of bias assessment of included study was evaluated by the QUADAS-C tool. Then, a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed by R 4.1.3 and STATA 17.0 software. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability values were applied to rank the examined scoring systems. Results A total of 20 cohort studies involving 42,236 participants were included in this analysis. The results of the NMA showed that AIS-APS had excellent performance in prediction accuracy for SAP than Chumbler (MD = 0.030, 95%CI: 0.004, 0.054), A2DS2 (MD = 0.041, 95% CI: 0.023, 0.059), ISAN (MD = 0.045, 95% CI: 0.022, 0.069), Kwon (MD = 0.077, 95% CI: 0.055, 0.099) and PANTHERIS (MD = 0.082, 95% CI: 0.049, 0.114). Based on SUCRA values, AIS-APS (SUCRA: 99.8%) ranked the highest. Conclusion In conclusion, the study found that the AIS-APS is a validated clinical tool for predicting SAP after the onset of acute ischemic stroke. Systematic review registration…

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: 42,236 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