Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35056334›Full record

ReviewMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2021

Sepsis in Burns-Lessons Learnt from Developments in the Management of Septic Shock.

Dorothee Boehm, Henrik Menke

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

NCT07223684 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Surgical Critical Care Initiative (SC2i) Tissue and Data Acquisition Protocol (TDAP) in Burn Patients Improving the Robustness and Generalizability of Post-Burn Sepsis Prediction With the Post-Burn Sepsis Digital Twin

TypeobservationalSponsorHenry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military MedicineRan2026 to 2027Enrolled80ConditionsSepsis, Burn Injury, Wound Healing, Critical IllnessArmsObservational Cohort (No Intervention)
NCT07249762 not yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Surgical Critical Care Initiative (SC2i) Tissue and Data Acquisition Protocol (TDAP) in Burn Patients Improving the Robustness and Generalizability of Post-burn Sepsis Prediction With the Post-Burn Sepsis Digital Twin. Group 1

TypeobservationalSponsorHenry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military MedicineRan2026 to 2027Enrolled40ConditionsSepsis, Burn Injury, Wound Healing, Critical IllnessArmsObservational Cohort (No Intervention)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Sepsis in burn care: incidence and outcomes.Military Medical Research · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. [Discussion on classification and diagnostic nomenclature of burn infection].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dorothee BoehmDepartment of Plastic, Aesthetic and Hand Surgery, Specialized Burn Center, Sana Klinikum Offenbach, Starkenburgring 66, 63069 Offenbach, Germany.
Henrik MenkeDepartment of Plastic, Aesthetic and Hand Surgery, Specialized Burn Center, Sana Klinikum Offenbach, Starkenburgring 66, 63069 Offenbach, Germany.
Sana Klinikum Offenbach · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After surviving the acute phase of resuscitation, septic shock is the cause of death in the majority of burn patients. Therefore, the management of septic shock is a cornerstone in modern burn care. Whereas sepsis therapy in general has undergone remarkable developments in the past decade, the management of septic shock in burn patients still has a long way to go. Instead, the differences of burn patients with septic shock versus general patients have been emphasized and thus, burn patients were excluded in every sepsis study which are the basis for modern sepsis therapy. However, due to the lack of evidence in burn patients, the standards of procedure for general sepsis therapy have been adopted in burn care. This review identifies the differences of burn patients with sepsis versus other septic patients and summarizes the scientific basis for modern sepsis therapy in general ICU patients and burn patients. Consequently, the results in general sepsis research should be transferred to burn care, which means the implementation of effective screening, early resuscitation, and efficient antimicrobial treatment. Therefore, on the basis of past developments and in the light of the current update of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, this review introduces the "Burn SOFA score" and the "3 H's of burn sepsis" as a screening tool for early sepsis recognition in burn patients.

Indexed as

BurnsSepsisShock, SepticAnti-Bacterial AgentsHumansAnti-Bacterial Agentsantibiotic timingburnssepsisseptic shockSOFA

Identifiers

PMID35056334
PMCPMC8779285
OpenAlexW4200201853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.