ArticleEuropean burn journal2026
Prognostic Scoring Systems for Burns: A Comparative Analysis of Their Predictive Accuracies for Mortality in Burn Patients.
Article in European burn journal, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionVarious scoring systems are applied to burn patients to assess the perioperative and mortality risks as well as comorbidities.
objectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the predictive accuracies for mortality of different scoring systems: the Abbreviated Burn Severity Index (ABSI), Bogenhausen ABSI (BABSI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and modified Frailty Index-5 (mFI-5). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed 644 burn patients treated at one burn center between September 2018 and May 2022.
resultsMedian scores were 5 (range: 1-16), 5 (range: 2-17.5), 2 (range: 1-5), 0 (range: 0-14) and 0 (range: 0-5) for the ABSI, BABSI, ASA, CCI and mFI-5, respectively. Significantly different median score results were observed between survivors and non-survivors: ABSI: 5 vs. 10; BABSI: 5 vs. 10.5; ASA: 2 vs. 4; CCI: 0 vs. 5; and mFI-5: 0 vs. 2 (
conclusionAll five scores significantly differentiate between survivors and non-survivors. However, the strongest discriminatory power and best calibration for mortality prediction were observed for the BABSI and ABSI scores. Therefore, the application of both scores is recommended in daily routine.
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.