Evidence Hub

Distribution of Pathogens in Elderly Chinese Patients With Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Luming Chen, Hong-xing Huang, Xiaolin Chen

Frontiers in Medicine, 2021

5,729 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Background: To summarize the distribution of pathogenic bacteria in elderly Chinese patients with pneumonia and provide guidance for the clinical application of antibiotics. Methods: The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched. The primary outcomes included the prevalence of gram-positive cocci, gram-negative bacilli, and fungus. The summary prevalence and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using the random-effects model. Results: A total of 17 retrospective studies reporting a total of 5,729 elderly patients with pneumonia were selected for final analysis. The summary prevalence of gram-positive cocci was 25% (95% CI: 20–30%; p < 0.001), whereas the prevalence of gram-negative bacilli was 56% (95% CI: 46–67%; p < 0.001). Moreover, the pooled prevalence of fungus in elderly patients with pneumonia was 11% (95% CI: 8–14%; p < 0.001). The most common gram-positive cocci were Staphylococcus aureus (ES: 8%; 95% CI: 6–11%; p <0.001), Streptococcus hemolyticus (ES: 7%; 95% CI: 6–8%; p < 0.001), and Streptococcus pneumoniae (ES: 5%; 95% CI: 3–7%; p < 0.001). Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ES: 18%; 95% CI: 14–22%; p <0.001) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (ES: 14%; 95% CI: 11–18%; p <0.001) were most common gram-negative bacilli. Furthermore, the pooled prevalence of Candida albicans in elderly patients with pneumonia was 6% (95% CI: 5–8%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The findings demonstrated the comprehensive…

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: 5,729 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