Back

Mortality, morbidity, and post-operative complications of typhoid intestinal perforations: global systematic review and meta-analysis

Hagedoorn, N. N.; Birkhold, M.; Murthy, S.; Rathan, M. D.; Marchello, C. S.; Crump, J. A.

2024-07-01 surgery
10.1101/2024.06.28.24309663 medRxiv
Show abstract

STRUCTURED ABSTRACTO_ST_ABSObjectiveC_ST_ABSWe aimed to review global studies reporting on mortality, morbidity, and post-operative complications in patients with typhoid intestinal perforation (TIP). Summary Background DataTIP is a serious and life-threatening complication of typhoid fever that requires emergency surgery and an important driver of typhoid burden. MethodsWe searched multiple databases for articles reporting case-fatality ratio (CFR) or complications in patients with TIP undergoing surgery published from 1980 through 30 January 2024. We described the prevalence of each reported complication. Of patients with TIP, we pooled CFR using random-effects meta-analysis and stratified by United Nations region, sex, and number of perforations per patient. ResultsWe included 46 articles reporting on 4,317 patients with TIP. The most prevalent post-operative complications were wound or surgical site infection in 1,537 (50.7%) of 3,030 patients, wound dehiscence in 308 (16.1%) of 1,909, and chest infection in 136 (15.6%) of 872. Overall, the pooled CFR (95%CI) of patients with TIP was 15.6% (12.5-18.9%), and was 20.5% (17.1-23.9%) in 30 observations from the African region, 5.7% (2.6-9.6%) in 15 observations from the Asian region, and 12.2% (0.90-30.4%) in three observations from the Americas. The Pearsons correlation coefficient of median year of data collection and CFR was -0.01 (p=0.95) for Africa and -0.69 (p <0.01) for Asia. ConclusionsDisability and death associated with TIP remains substantial. Efforts to reduce the occurrence of TIP through typhoid prevention with vaccine and non-vaccine measures, and increased access to and quality of surgical services for those with TIP are warranted.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.