ArticleInfection2026
The PH score for early differentiation of necrotizing fasciitis: a retrospective diagnostic prediction study.
Article in Infection, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly differentiation of necrotizing fasciitis (NF) from non-necrotizing soft tissue infections (non-NSTI) remains a clinical challenge because delayed diagnosis is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Existing diagnostic scoring systems have shown inconsistent performance across different populations and often rely on multiple laboratory variables, limiting their routine clinical applicability. Therefore, this study aimed to develop and internally validate a simple diagnostic score based on routinely available laboratory parameters for the early identification of NF.
methodsA single-center retrospective study enrolled 92 NF and 80 non-NSTI patients (2022-2026). Independent predictors were identified via multivariable logistic regression, and a PH score(Platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio-Hemoglobin Score)was developed and internally validated. Performance was compared with LRINEC, SIARI, and LARINF scores using ROC analysis, with bootstrap and 10-fold cross-validation for internal validation. Calibration and clinical utility were assessed.
resultsPLR (OR = 1.02) and Hb (OR = 0.96) were independent predictors. The PH score showed an AUC of 0.853 (95% CI 0.798-0.909), outperforming LRINEC (0.654), SIARI (0.736), and LARINF (0.602). At cutoff ≥ 2, sensitivity 86.7%, specificity 73.4%, accuracy 80.5%. Bootstrap-corrected AUC was 0.847, 10-fold cross-validation AUC 0.852. Calibration was good, and decision curve analysis showed higher net benefit than existing scores.
conclusionsThe PH score, incorporating PLR and hemoglobin, is a simple and readily available diagnostic tool for the early differentiation of NF from non-NSTIs. The model showed favorable discrimination, calibration, and internal validation performance and provided greater net benefit than existing scoring systems. External validation in multicenter prospective cohorts is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42842204What 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.