ReviewEuropean burn journal2025
Early Detection, Diagnosis, Prevention, and Treatment of Infection to Avoid Sepsis and Septic Shock in Severely Burned Patients: A Narrative Review.
Review in European burn journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Risk Factors for Sepsis and Pulmonary Embolism Mortality in Burn Patients by Using a Competing Risk Model: A Machine Learning Approach.BioMed research international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The early detection, diagnosis, anticipation, and therapy of infections to prevent sepsis and septic shock remain significant challenges in cases of grave burns. This narrative review explores various tools for early infection detection, including emerging biomarkers, the American Burn Association's clinical criteria, and traditional blood parameters. A comparative study of the American Burn Association, Mann-Salinas, and Sepsis-3 criteria highlights the superior early detection capabilities of the Sepsis-3 criteria. However, the authors recommend that sepsis should be prospectively evaluated, identified, and classified by the intensive care group, rather than by relying solely on retrospective items, though the latter may still be necessary in certain cases. Advances in biomarker identification, including polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and gene expression (mRNA) profiling, offer diagnostic advantages over current methods, enabling early detection within 4 to 6 h of intensive care unit admission. Mass spectrometry also shows promise for the rapid determination of bacteria, yeast, and fungi based on bacteria protein profiles. Source control remains crucial, and the use of antibacterial topical agents has significantly improved the survival rates of severely burned patients. However, antibiotic selection must be made judiciously to avoid resistance. Despite these advancements, significant progress is still needed to improve the rapid identification, actual presence, prevention, and therapy of infections to reduce the incidence of sepsis and septic shock in this patient subgroup.
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.