ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2023
Vital indicators in predicting burn mortality: A comparison of shock indices and burn shock indices.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2023. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: In many studies, shock indices have proven to be good tools for predicting mortality. In the present study, burn shock index (BSI), percentage of total body surface area burned (TBSA%) multiplied by shock index; burn modified shock index (BMSI), TBSA% multiplied by modified shock index; burn age shock index (BASI), TBSA% multiplied by age shock index; burn rivers shock index (BrSI), TBSA% multiplied by rivers shock index; burn rivers shock index multiplied by Glasgow Coma Scale score (BrSIG) were examined in burn patients. We defined these burn shock indices for the first time. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of shock indices and burn shock indices in predicting mortality in burn patients. Materials and methods: This study examines retrospectively of burn patients admitted to the emergency department of Dicle University Hospital between January 2010 and December 2022. The patients' vital signs were obtained at the time of presentation to the emergency department, and shock indices were calculated. The effectiveness of shock indices in predicting mortality was compared. Results: A total of 2445 patients were included in the study. Of the patients, 1793 were pediatric, and 652 were adults. BSI (AUC: 0.872, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812-0.931, p < 0.001) had the highest area under the curve (AUC) value in predicting mortality in children. The optimal cut-off value for BSI in children was 21.79 and its was sensitivity 83.05%, specificity 79.64%, positive predictive value (PPV) 12.19%, negative predictive value (NPV) 99.28%. In adults, BASI had the highest value of AUC (AUC: 0.936, 95% CI: 0.887-0.984, p < 0.001). The optimal cut-off value for BASI in adults was 62.5 and its sensitivity was 86.49%, specificity was 91.71%, PPV was 38.55%, and NPV was 99.12%. Conclusion: Shock indices are easy to calculate and effective in predicting mortality in burn patients admitted to the emergency department. Among the shock indices in the study, BSI was the best in predicting mortality in children, and BASI was the best in adults.
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.