ArticleAnnals of burns and fire disasters2017
A sirs-based automated alarm system for the diagnosis of sepsis after burn injury.
Article in Annals of burns and fire disasters, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Statistical Study for the Prognostic Value of NLR Values in Patients with Severe Burns: A Study in the Service of Burns in Albania.Annals of burns and fire disasters · 2025Article
- Review
- Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems for the Early Detection of Sepsis Among Adult Inpatients: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study examined the effectiveness of an automated systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS)-based alarm system for the early detection of sepsis in adult burn patients. In addition, the relevance of the sepsis criteria from the American Burn Association (ABA) and the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock (Sepsis-3) for this patient group was determined. In this prospective observational study, we included 41 consecutive patients who were admitted to our burn ICU within a one-year period. SIRS alarms were calculated for these patients according to predefined criteria using the PREDEC ALARM automated alarm system and alarms generated according to ABA criteria and daily Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) results. The alarms were not visible to the treating doctors and nurses. The alarms identified were related to episodes of sepsis with positive blood cultures. Twenty-one sepsis events were recorded in 41 patients. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.72 for alarms using 2 SIRS criteria, 0.77 for 3 SIRS criteria, and 0.61 for 4 SIRS criteria. AUC values of 0.53 and 0.59 were calculated for the ABA criteria and Sepsis-3 definition, respectively. An alarm system using 3 SIRS criteria proved to be suitable for the early detection of sepsis in burn patients. The frequent number of false alarms requires further refinement of the alarm system. Based on the results of our study, the ABA criteria and the Sepsis-3 definition provide no advantages over the SIRS criteria in the early diagnosis of sepsis after burn injury.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29849519PMC5946747What 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.