ArticleTrauma surgery & acute care open2026
Early intubation decisions in burn-related inhalation injury: a systematic review of the utility of physical findings in rural and low-resource healthcare settings.
Article in Trauma surgery & acute care open, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bronchoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosing inhalation injury in burn patients. However, its availability remains limited even in major cities such as Jakarta. This lack of access presents significant diagnostic challenges, particularly in rural and resource-limited areas across Indonesia. This paper aims to review physical findings for the early diagnosis of inhalation injury in burn patients and to identify indicators for early intubation in settings where bronchoscopy is limited or unavailable. Methods: A literature review was conducted using the keywords "inhalation injury," "burns," and "intubation," with PubMed, Cochrane, and ScienceDirect as the primary databases. The inclusion criteria for this review consisted of trials that evaluated physical findings as diagnostic tools for inhalation injury, with bronchoscopy serving as the gold standard. Study selection followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, with two independent reviewers assessing eligibility. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool for diagnostic accuracy studies. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic ORs (DORs), along with 95% CIs, were calculated for individual physical findings and clinical decision aids. Results: Ten physical findings for inhalation injury were analyzed and ranked by DORs. Most findings showed high specificity and low sensitivity. The pooled DOR ranged from 0.93 to 7.50. Dyspnea had the highest DOR of 7.50 (95% CI 0.48 to 119.17), while singed nasal hair had the lowest DOR of 0.93 (95% CI 0.09 to 9.71). Dyspnea, stridor, and hoarseness exhibited the highest DOR among other physical findings. Conclusion: Physical examination remains essential where bronchoscopy is unavailable, although most findings have limited sensitivity. Physical signs with the highest diagnostic accuracy, especially dyspnea, stridor, and hoarseness, may help guide early intubation in resource-limited settings. PROSPERO registration number: CRD420250651230.
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.