ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
The role of perfusion index in the evaluation of patients with cancer.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer patients frequently present to the emergency department (ED) with a wide range of acute conditions. Rapid and accurate triage can significantly improve clinical outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value and clinical usefulness of the perfusion index (PI), measured using a simple and easily applicable method, for triage and prediction of 30-day mortality in cancer patients.
methodThis study was retrospective design. Patients who had a history of malignancy and were brought to the ED by ambulance service between January 01, 2019 and December 31, 2022 were scanned from the hospital database. The patient’s clinical, laboratory parameters, and PI at the time of admission were recorded. The patients’ Emergency Severity Index (ESI) and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) values were calculated. The of all patients Patients’ 30-day mortality were recorded. The multivariate logistic regression test was used to examine the factors affecting mortality. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsA total of 208 patients were included in the study. The 30-day mortality rate was 37% (77). In the logistic regression analysis, it was found that the patients in ESI-1,2 had a 6.26-fold (OR: 6.258) mortality (p < 0.001), while we found that PI did not contribute to predicting mortality (p = 0.640). qSOFA value above 2 was found to be superior in predicting mortality with 74.3% AUC, 54.55% sensitivity, 87.79% specificity (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe PI was less significant than the high-risk ESI and qSOFA scores for predicting 30-day mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.