ArticleJournal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association2024
Amphetamine Positivity Prior to Burn Surgery Does not Adversely Affect Intraoperative Outcomes.
Article in Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The treatment of burn patients using amphetamines is challenging due hemodynamic liabilty and altered physiology. Wide variation exists in the operative timing for this patient population. We hypothesize that burn excision in patients admitted with amphetamine positivity is safe regardless of timing. Data from two verified burn centers between 2017 and 2022 with differing practice patterns in operative timing for amphetamine-positive patients. Center A obtains toxicology only on admission and proceeds with surgery based on hemodynamic status and operative urgency, whereas Center B sends daily toxicology until a negative test results. The primary outcome was the use of vasoactive agents during the index operation, modeled using logistic regression adjusting for burn severity and hospital days to index operation. Secondary outcomes included death and inpatient complications. A total of 270 patients were included, and there were no significant differences in demographics or burn characteristics between centers. Center A screened once and Center B obtained a median of four screens prior to the surgery. The adjusted OR of requiring vasoactive support intraoperatively was not associated with negative toxicology result (P = .821). Having a body surface area burned >20% conferred a significantly higher risk of vasoactive support (adj. OR 13.42 [3.90-46.23], P < .001). Mortality, number of operations, stroke, and hospital length of stay were similar between cohorts. Comparison between two verified burn centers indicates that waiting until a negative amphetamine toxicology result does not impact intraoperative management or subsequent burn outcomes. Serial toxicology tests are unnecessary to guide operative timing of burn patients with amphetamine use.
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.