ArticleRevista Cuidarte
Diagnostic performance of the LRINEC score for diagnosing necrotizing fasciitis in a Latin American population.
Article in Revista Cuidarte. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC) score was developed to estimate the likelihood of necrotizing fasciitis (NF); however, its diagnostic performance varies across populations, and evidence from Latin America remains limited. Objective: To assess the diagnostic performance of the LRINEC score in a Colombian population with skin and soft tissue infections. Materials and Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients hospitalized at two tertiary care institutions in Colombia between 2016 and 2021. Patients with signs of systemic inflammatory response were considered suspected cases of NF. The diagnosis was confirmed or ruled out based on intraoperative or histopathologic findings. The LRINEC score was calculated, and its diagnostic performance was evaluated using sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Results: Among 1.546 medical records, 29 confirmed cases of NF and 106 suspected cases in which NF was ruled out were identified. The mean LRINEC score among patients with NF was 6 points. A cutoff score of ≥6 yielded a sensitivity of 62.07%, a specificity of 71.70%, and an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.67. At a cutoff score of ≥8, sensitivity was 34.48%, and specificity was 89.62%. Discussion: These findings indicate moderate diagnostic performance, similar to that reported in other retrospective studies conducted in Latin American populations, with greater utility for ruling out NF than for ruling it in. Conclusion: The LRINEC score showed limited utility as a standalone diagnostic tool. A score <6 had a high negative predictive value and should always be interpreted in conjunction with clinical judgment.
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.