Prediction of stroke-associated pneumonia by the A2DS2, AIS-APS, and ISAN scores: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

Background: Different scoring systems (A2DS2, AISAPS, ISAN) have been designed to predict the risk of in-hospital stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP). Studies have assessed the accuracy of these scores for predicting SAP. We performed this meta-analysis to consolidate the evidence on the predictive accuracies for SAP of the A2DS2, AISAPS, and ISAN scores.

Materials and methods: We conducted a systematic search for all studies reporting the SAP predictive accuracy of A2DS2, AISAPS, or ISAN scores in the databases of PubMed Central, SCOPUS, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane from inception until December 2020. We used the STATA software for the meta-analysis.

Results: We included 19 studies with 35 849 patients. The pooled score sensitivities were 78% (95% CI, 71%-83%) for A2DS2, 79% (95% CI, 77%-81%) for AISAPS, and 79% (95% CI, 77%-81%) for ISAN. The pooled score specificities were 73% (95% CI, 65%-80%) for A2DS2, 74% (95% CI, 69%-79%) for AISAPS, and 74% (95% CI, 69%-79%) for ISAN. We found significant heterogeneity for all the scoring systems based on the chi-square test results and an I² statistic > 75%. We performed meta-regression to explore the source of heterogeneity and found that patient selection (p< 0.05) and reference standards (p< 0.05) in the sensitivity model, index test standards (p< 0.05), flow and timing of tests (p< 0.01) in the specificity model, and mean age (p < 0.001) in the joint model were the source of heterogeneity.

Conclusions: To summarize, we found that A2S2, AISAPS and ISAN have moderate predictive accuracy for SAP with A2S2 having a stable cutoff value.

KEYWORDS:

• Meta-analysis
• risk prediction
• stroke associated pneumonia
• validation studies

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Reviewer disclosures

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Author contributions

JN designed the project; WS and XW were involved in data collection and data analysis; JN prepared the manuscript; JS edited the manuscript; all authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.