ArticleJournal of cutaneous pathology2017
Improving the histologic characterization of burn depth.
Article in Journal of cutaneous pathology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Burn Depth using Indocyanine Green: Discrepancies Between Macroscopic Visualization and the Microenvironment.Plastic and reconstructive surgery · 2026Article
- Multilayer In Vitro Human Skin Tissue Platforms for Quantitative Burn Injury Investigation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The early association of water irrigation with negative pressure wound therapy does not more efficiently reduce the depth of the alkali infiltration progress into the burn.International wound journal · 2023Article
- Robbing Peter to Pay Paul: Chlorhexidine gluconate demonstrates short-term efficacy and long-term cytotoxicity.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2022Article
- Lactate dehydrogenase activity staining demonstrates time-dependent immune cell infiltration in human ex-vivo burn-injured skin.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- A 3D In Vitro Model for Burn Wounds: Monitoring of Regeneration on the Epidermal Level.Biomedicines · 2021Article
- Indeterminate-Depth Burn Injury-Exploring the Uncertainty.The Journal of surgical research · 2020Review
- Discordance between histologic and visual assessment of tissue viability in excised burn wound tissue.Wound repair and regeneration : official publication of the Wound Healing Society [and] the European Tissue Repair Society · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVisual assessment of burn wound appearance is the standard of care to determine the depth of thermal injury but often incorrectly predicts wound healing potential. Histologic evaluation of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained burn tissue is prone to subjectivity and is challenging for the novice. Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) staining may offer a simplified and consistent technique to identify burn tissue viability.
methodsThirty tissue samples were obtained from 6 patients undergoing surgical excision for clinically determined deep partial thickness or full thickness burns. Tissues were stained with H&E or LDH. Each specimen was scored by 3 individuals with varying levels of skill in histologic interpretation using a standardized checklist at 2 distinct time points.
resultsAgreement within raters was highest for the expert rater and lowest for the novice; however, the LDH stained tissue method had improved agreement for an experienced burn surgeon and novice. Agreement between raters was greater for the LDH stained samples which were determined to have greater viability than the corresponding H&E section in 100% of samples scored by the expert and in 80% for the novice clinician.
conclusionLDH staining offers a more consistent measure of tissue viability that can be used by experienced and novice clinicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.