ArticleBMC infectious diseases2025
Development of a predictive model for septic shock-associated acute skin failure using readily available clinical variables.
Article in BMC infectious diseases, 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.
- Development and Validation of a Nomogram for Predicting Acute Skin Failure in Critically Ill Patients: A Prospective Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcute skin failure (ASF) is an understudied complication in patients with septic shock, and existing predictive models lack disease-specific variables. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of cutaneous manifestations in patients with septic shock and to identify potential biomarkers and predictive factors for cutaneous deterioration.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study analysed 154 adult patients with septic shock, defined according to the Sepsis 3.0 criteria, who were admitted to a tertiary intensive care unit (ICU) between September 2020 and September 2022. Based on cutaneous manifestations observed during hospitalisation, the patients were stratified into two groups: the ASF group and the non-ASF group. Clinical characteristics, therapeutic interventions and laboratory parameters were evaluated. Significant univariate predictors were included in multivariable logistic regression. A p-value below 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThis study enrolled a total of 154 patients with septic shock, among whom 49 developed ASF, yielding an incidence rate of 31.8%. In the multivariate analysis, four independent predictors were identified: maximum norepinephrine (NE) dose (odds ratio [OR] = 2.47, p = 0.051), NE duration (OR = 1.19, p = 0.054), central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO₂) (OR = 0.97, p = 0.042) and absence of oedema (OR = 0.18, p = 0.008). The model achieved an area under the curve of 0.803 (95% CI: 0.730-0.876) with 72.3% sensitivity and 72.4% specificity at the optimal cut-off.
conclusionsThe validated prediction model identifies patients with septic shock who are at high risk for ASF using four readily available clinical parameters: maximum NE dose, NE duration, ScvO₂ and absence of oedema, helping clinicians provide early warning and thereby reduce associated skin complications. 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.