Evidence Hub

Frequency of post-stroke pneumonia: Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

M. Badve, Zi-En Zhou, D. van de Beek, C. Anderson, M. Hackett

International Journal of Stroke, 2018

139,432 participants · 105 citations

Abstract

Background Post-stroke pneumonia and other infectious complications are serious conditions whose frequency varies widely across studies. Aims We conducted a systematic review to estimate the frequency of post-stroke pneumonia and other types of major infection. Summary of review MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases were searched for prospective studies with consecutive recruitment of stroke patients. The primary outcome was post-stroke pneumonia. Secondary outcomes were any infection and urinary tract infection. Quality assessment was done using Newcastle Ottawa scale. Heterogeneity of estimates across study populations was calculated using Cochran's Q (heterogeneity χ2) and I2 statistics. A total of 47 studies (139,432 patients) with 48 sample populations were eligible for inclusion. Mean age of patients was 68.3 years and their mean National Institute of Health Stroke Scale score was 8.2. The pooled frequency of post-stroke pneumonia was 12.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 11%–13.6%; I2 = 98%). The pooled frequency from 2011 to 2017 was 13.5% (95% CI 11.8%–15.3%; I2 = 98%) and comparable with earlier periods (P interaction = 0.31). The pooled frequency in studies in stroke units was 8% (95% CI 7.1%–9%; I2 = 78%) and significantly lower than other locations (P interaction = 0.001). The pooled frequency of post-stroke infection was 21% (95% CI 13%–29.3%; I2 = 99%) and of post-stroke urinary tract infection was 7.9% (95% CI 6.7%–9.3%; I2 = 96%). Conclusion…

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: 139,432 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