SynthesisDiving and hyperbaric medicine2024
Reported outcome measures in necrotising soft tissue infections: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Diving and hyperbaric medicine, 2024. 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.
- Severe necrotizing soft tissue infections (SENSEI) study: Protocol for a multi-centered audit.JPRAS open · 2026Article
- Core outcome set for research in necrotising soft tissue infection patients: an international, multidisciplinary, modified Delphi consensus study.Diving and hyperbaric medicine · 2025Article
- Validation of necrotising infection clinical composite endpoint in a retrospective cohort of patients with necrotising soft tissue infections.Diving and hyperbaric medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: There are inconsistencies in outcome reporting for patients with necrotising soft tissue infections (NSTI). The aim of this study was to evaluate reported outcome measures in NSTI literature that could inform a core outcome set (COS) such as could be used in a study of hyperbaric oxygen in this indication. Methods: A systematic review of all NSTI literature identified from Cochrane, Ovid MEDLINE and Scopus databases as well as grey literature sources OpenGrey and the New York Academy of Medicine databases which met inclusion criteria and were published between 2010 and 2020 was performed. Studies were included if they reported on > 5 cases and presented clinical endpoints, patient related outcomes, or resource utilisation in NSTI patients. Studies did not have to include intervention. Two independent researchers then extracted reported outcome measures. Similar outcomes were grouped and classified into domains to produce a structured inventory. An attempt was made to identify trends in outcome measures over time and by study design. Results: Three hundred and seventy-five studies were identified and included a total of 311 outcome measures. Forty eight percent (150/311) of outcome measures were reported by two or more studies. The four most frequently reported outcome measures were mortality without time specified, length of hospital stay, amputation performed, and number of debridements, reported in 298 (79.5%), 260 (69.3%), 156 (41.6%) and 151 (40.3%) studies respectively. Mortality outcomes were reported in 23 different ways. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were more likely to report 28-day mortality or 90-day mortality. The second most frequent amputation related outcome was level of amputation, reported in 7.5% (28/375) of studies. The most commonly reported patient-centred outcome was the SF-36 which was reported in 1.6% (6/375) of all studies and in 2/10 RCTs. Conclusions: There was wide variance in outcome measures in NSTI studies, further highlighting the need for a COS.
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.