ArticleEuropean burn journal2022
Aspects of Clinical Utility of the Distress Thermometer and Problem List after Burns.
Article in European burn journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A randomized controlled trial of a compassion-centered spiritual health intervention to improve hospital inpatient outcomes.PloS one · 2025Trial
- Development and Testing of the Aftercare Problem List, a Burn Aftercare Screening Instrument.European burn journal · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Burn survivors may benefit from screening for a broad area of problems to improve communication and inform referral needs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate clinical utility aspects such as appropriateness and acceptability to clinicians and completers of an existing, frequently used screening instrument in oncological populations, the Distress Thermometer and Problem List (DT and PL).
methodsPaediatric and adult patients visiting the outpatient clinic after admission to the burn centre were invited to complete the instrument. The DT and (problem domains of) the PL were related and compared to the need to discuss the reported problems.
resultsA total of 160 patients were invited to complete the DT and PL, of which 139 agreed. The study shows evidence for appropriateness and high acceptability to clinicians and completers, although the effectiveness of the PL may be lower compared to the DT and needs adaptation to better meet the burn survivors' situation. DISCUSSION: The use of a screening instrument in the outpatient clinic environment has shown to be appropriate and acceptable and informs clinical practice to identify supportive needs in patients with burns. However, the PL needs to be adapted to the situation of the burn survivors.
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.