METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the PubMed/MEDLINE database. We included all English, Dutch, and German original research papers in adult trauma patients reporting diagnostic criteria for hospital-acquired pneumonia diagnosis. The risk of bias was assessed using the MINORS criteria.
RESULTS: Forty-six out of 5749 non-duplicate studies were included. Forty-seven unique criteria were reported and divided into five categories: clinical, laboratory, microbiological, radiologic, and miscellaneous. Eighteen studies used 33 unique guideline criteria; 28 studies used 36 unique non-guideline criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical criteria for diagnosing HAP-both guideline and non-guideline-are widespread with no clear consensus, leading to restrictions in adequately comparing the available literature on HAP in trauma patients. Studies should at least report how a diagnosis was made, but preferably, they would use pre-defined guideline criteria for pneumonia diagnosis in a research setting. Ideally, one internationally accepted set of criteria is used to diagnose hospital-acquired pneumonia.
METHODS: Level III.
方法:使用PubMed/MEDLINE数据库进行系统评价。我们包括所有的英语,荷兰人,和德国在成人创伤患者中报告医院获得性肺炎诊断标准的原始研究论文。使用MINORS标准评估偏倚风险。
结果:纳入了5749项非重复研究中的46项。报告了47个独特的标准,分为五类:临床,实验室,微生物,放射学,和杂项。18项研究使用了33项独特的指南标准;28项研究使用了36项独特的非指南标准。
结论:诊断HAP的临床标准-指南和非指南-广泛存在,没有明确的共识。导致限制充分比较创伤患者HAP的现有文献。研究至少应该报告诊断是如何做出的,但最好是,他们会在研究环境中使用预先定义的肺炎诊断指南标准.理想情况下,一套国际公认的标准用于诊断医院获得性肺炎。
方法:三级。