Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35765610›Full record

ReviewArchives of academic emergency medicine2022

Adherence to Referral Criteria for Burn Patients; a Systematic Review.

Ali Bazzi, Mohammad Javad Ghazanfari, Masoumeh Norouzi, Mohammadreza Mobayen, Fateme Jafaraghaee, Amir Emami Zeydi, Joseph Osuji, Samad Karkhah

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 12 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 12 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Burns and pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic.Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries · 2022
    Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Ali BazziDepartment of Medical-Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
Mohammad Javad GhazanfariBurn and Regenerative Medicine Research Center, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
Masoumeh NorouziDepartment of Medical-Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
Mohammadreza MobayenBurn and Regenerative Medicine Research Center, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
Fateme JafaraghaeeSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
Amir Emami ZeydiDepartment of Medical-Surgical Nursing, Nasibeh School of Nursing and Midwifery, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, Iran.
Joseph OsujiSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health, Community, and Education, Mount Royal University, Calgary, Ab, Canada.
Samad KarkhahDepartment of Medical-Surgical Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Burn injuries are under-appreciated trauma, associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. It is necessary to refer patients in need of specialized care to more specialized centers for treatment and rehabilitation of burn injuries. This systematic review aimed to assess the adherence to referral criteria for burn patients. Methods: An extensive search was conducted on Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science online databases using the relevant keywords from the earliest to October 7, 2021. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies (AXIS tool). Results: Among a total of 7,455 burn patients included in the nine studies, 60.95% were male. The most frequently burned areas were the hands (n=3) and the face (n=2). The most and least common burn mechanisms were scalds (62.76%) and electrical or chemical (2.88%), respectively. 51.88% of burn patients had met ≥ 1 referral criteria. The overall adherence to the referral criteria for burn patients was 58.28% (17.37 to 93.39%). The highest and lowest adherence rates were related to Western Cape Provincial (WCP) (26.70%) and National Burn Care Review (NBCR) (4.97%) criteria, respectively. Conclusion: The overall adherence to the referral criteria for burn patients was relatively desirable. Therefore, well-designed future studies are suggested in order to uncover approaches to improve adherence to referral criteria for burn patients.

Indexed as

BurnsGuideline adherenceReferral and consultationSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35765610
PMCPMC9206830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.