Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29610766›Full record

ArticleBurns & trauma2018

Checking procalcitonin suitability for prognosis and antimicrobial therapy monitoring in burn patients.

Luís Cabral, Vera Afreixo, Rita Meireles, Miguel Vaz, Catarina Chaves, Marisa Caetano, Luís Almeida, José Artur Paiva

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Burns & trauma, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Contemporary Aspects of Burn Care.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Luís Cabral1Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns Unit, Unidade de Queimados, Coimbra University Hospital Centre (CHUC), Av. Bissaya Barreto s/n, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-6820-5251
Vera Afreixo3CIDMA - Center for Research and Development in Mathematics and Applications, iBiMED, Institute for Biomedicine, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal.
Rita Meireles1Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns Unit, Unidade de Queimados, Coimbra University Hospital Centre (CHUC), Av. Bissaya Barreto s/n, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal.
Miguel Vaz1Department of Plastic Surgery and Burns Unit, Unidade de Queimados, Coimbra University Hospital Centre (CHUC), Av. Bissaya Barreto s/n, 3000-075 Coimbra, Portugal.
Catarina Chaves4Clinical Pathology Department, Coimbra University Hospital Centre (CHUC), Coimbra, Portugal.
Marisa Caetano5Pharmacy Department, Coimbra University Hospital Centre (CHUC), Coimbra, Portugal.
Luís Almeida6MedinUP, Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
José Artur Paiva7Department of Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto, Portugal.
Universidade do Porto · PTUniversity of Aveiro · PTUniversity of Coimbra · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to greater infection susceptibility, sepsis is the main cause of death in burn patients. Quick diagnosis and patient stratification, early and appropriated antimicrobial therapy, and focus control are crucial for patients' survival. On the other hand, superfluous extension of therapy is associated with adverse events and arousal of microbial resistance. The use of biomarkers, necessarily coupled with close clinical examination, may predict outcomes, stratifying patients who need more intensive care, and monitor the efficacy of antimicrobial therapy, allowing faster de-escalation or stop, reducing the development of resistance and possibly the financial burden, without increasing mortality. The aim of this work is to check the suitability of procalcitonin (PCT) to fulfill these goals in a large sample of septic burn patients.

methodsOne hundred and one patients, with 15% or more of total body surface area (TBSA) burned, admitted from January 2011 to December 2014 at Coimbra Burns Unit (CBU), in Portugal were included in the sample. All patients had a diagnosis of sepsis, according to the American Burn Association (ABA) criteria. The sample was factored by survival (68 survivors and 33 non-survivors). The maximum value of PCT in each day was used for statistical analysis. Data were summarized by location measures (mean, median, minimum, maximum, quartiles) and dispersion measures (standard error and range measures). Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS© 23.0 IBM© for Windows©.

resultsThere were statistically significant differences between PCT levels of patients from the survivor and non-survivor groups during the first and the last weeks of hospitalization as well as during the first week after sepsis suspicion, being slightly higher during this period. During the first 7 days of antimicrobial therapy, PCT was always higher in the non-survivor, still without reaching statistical significance, but when the analysis was extended till the 15th day, PCT increased significantly, rapidly, and steadily, denouncing therapy failure.

conclusionDespite being not an ideal biomarker, PCT proved to have good prognostic power in septic burn patients, paralleling the evolution of the infectious process and reflecting the efficacy of antimicrobial therapy, and the inclusion of its serial dosing may be advised to reinforce antimicrobial stewardship programs at burn units; meanwhile, more accurate approaches are not available.

Indexed as

Antimicrobial stewardshipBurnsProcalcitoninPrognosisSepsis

Identifiers

PMID29610766
PMCPMC5878422
OpenAlexW2794726019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.