ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2025
A predictive formula for the indication of airway management in burn patients.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTracheotomy is the most common and effective strategy to maintain the airway patency of burn patients. However, the indication and timing of tracheotomy in burn patients were mainly experience-relied and sometimes controversial. Here, we developed a classification formula to simply determine the indication and timing of tracheotomy in burn patients.
methodsThis retrospective study was conducted in all the acute burn patients admitted to a Chinese large burn center from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021. The following clinical data was collected from medical records: demographic data, burn causes, burn severity (burn area, Burn Index [BI]), inhalation injury, possible tracheotomy indications, tracheotomy complications and clinical outcomes. Logistic regression analyses were performed to screen possible risk factors and construct classification formulas. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the performance by areas under curves (AUCs) and calculate the cut-off value of formulas.
resultsA total of 951 burn patients were finally enrolled in this study, including 114 patients with tracheotomy and 837 patients without tracheotomy. Furthermore, 18 and 96 cases received emergency and prophylactic tracheotomy, respectively. A classification formula was developed by multivariate logistic regression as follows: Logit(p) = -6.854 + 0.026 × Age (years)-0.077 × Time (hours from burns to admission) + 0.085 × BI (total body) + 0.945 × BI (head/face/neck) + Inhalation injury (none:0, mild:1.521, moderate:2.637, severe:4.281). AUCs of the classification formula was 0.972 (95% CI 0.960-0.984), and higher than that of every individual factor. The cut-off value of classification formula, age, hours after injury, BI of total body and head/face/neck was 0.064, 49.5 years, 14.9 h, 14.5 and 2.8, respectively. Hours after injury was the only indicator for emergency tracheotomy with AUCs of 0.920 (95% CI 0.819-1.000) and cut-off value of 32.4 h.
conclusionThe developed formulas had good performance. In clinical practice, burn patients with screened risk factors (age > 49.5 years, later than 14.9 h, BI of total body > 14.5, BI of head/face/neck > 2.8, and with inhalation injury) were suspected for tracheotomy and could be further evaluated by the classification formula. If the calculated score was larger than 0.064, tracheotomy was very likely needed and planed tracheotomy would better be performed in 32.4 h after burns. Together, we provided an alternative strategy for determining the indication and timing of tracheotomy in burn patients.
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.