ArticleSAGE open medicine2019
Necrotizing fasciitis and the midterm outcomes after survival.
Article in SAGE open medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Post-operative quality of life in patients with necrotizing fasciitis: a report from a ten year institutional cohort.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Article
- The impact of necrotizing soft tissue infections on the lives of survivors: a qualitative study.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Long-term quality of life in necrotizing soft-tissue infection survivors: a monocentric prospective cohort study.Annals of intensive care · 2021Article
- Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infection: A Single-Center Retrospective Study of Treatment and Outcomes.Cureus · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsRadical surgical intervention is necessary to save patients' lives in cases of necrotizing fasciitis. This leads to persistent disabilities and most likely to a deteriorated quality of life. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the midterm outcomes after survival of necrotizing fasciitis. MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective analysis of 69 patients, treated for necrotizing fasciitis between 2003 and 2012. The patients were identified using the International Classification of Diseases (10th Revision) code M 72.6. Of the 50 survivors, 22 patients completed the Short Form 36 and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaires as a postal survey. The follow-up averaged 59 months (range: 6-128 months).
resultsThe average age at the time of necrotizing fasciitis was 60.0 years. The body mass index average was 29.7. The patients had a significantly decreased physical component summary score of 33.3 compared to a normative group (p < 0.001) (Short Form 36). They further showed a significantly decreased dysfunction and bother indices (Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment) (p < 0.001). An increased age (⩾70 years) was associated with an inferior role emotional (p = 0.048) and physical functioning (p = 0.011) as well as social functioning (p = 0.038) (Short Form 36). The majority of patients (16, 72.7%) complained of pain at the final follow-up and 50% of patients required an assistive device on a regular basis.
conclusionPatients who survived necrotizing fasciitis suffer from functional impairment and changed body appearance. Assistive devices or pain medication are often required, and the patients present with significantly decreased physical, social, and emotional functioning at the midterm follow-up. The patient's age is a critical factor regarding functional or mental outcome parameters. Further research on the post-hospital course and long-term multidisciplinary care is required to improve the outcomes of these patients.
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.