ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2026
Prognostic Value of Mortality Scoring Systems in Patients With Severe Burns: Identifying Key Predictors of Mortality and Comparative Analysis Between Survivors and Non-Survivors.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Burns remain a major public health challenge for modern healthcare systems due to high mortality and long-term consequences. This study evaluated the effectiveness of several scoring systems in predicting mortality and identified key prognostic factors in patients with severe burns. MATERIAL AND METHODS A retrospective analysis of 144 adult burn patients admitted to the intensive care unit was conducted. Mortality risk was assessed using total body surface area (TBSA), revised Baux, Abbreviated Burn Severity Index (ABSI), Belgium Outcome Burn Injury (BOBI), and Burn Mortality Prediction (BUMP) scores. Two analytical approaches were applied: a baseline clinical model including key independent variables (age, TBSA, inhalation injury), and separate logistic regression models for each scoring system. Predictive performance was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and compared using the DeLong test. RESULTS Overall mortality rate was 43.1%. Non-survivors were older (59.2 vs 46.5 years), had larger burned surface area (42.3% vs 35.3%), and more frequently presented with inhalation injury (59.7% vs 26.8%). The baseline model demonstrated excellent discriminative ability (AUROC=0.87, P<0.001). Among scoring systems, the revised BAUX achieved the highest AUROC (0.86, P<0.001), followed by BOBI and BUMP (both 0.83, P<0.001). However, pairwise comparisons showed no statistically significant differences between the best-performing scores. CONCLUSIONS The baseline clinical model and composite scoring systems demonstrated strong and comparable predictive performance. Simple clinical models based on key variables may provide an effective alternative for mortality risk assessment, while established scoring systems remain valuable due to their ease of use in routine practice. The findings highlight the need for early identification of high-risk patients and timely clinical management optimization.
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.