Dataset Information

Risk Models to Predict Mortality in Burn Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: The predictive capability of various risk assessment models (RAMs) in evaluating the risk of mortality in burn patients is not well established. It is also unclear which RAM provides the highest discriminative ability and presents the highest clinical utility. We pooled all available studies to establish this validity and compare the predictive capability of the various RAMs.

Methods

We reviewed PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase from their inception up until December 2021 for studies evaluating risk of mortality in burn patients as stratified by RAMs. Data were pooled using random-effect models and presented as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve.

Results

Thirty-four studies, comprising of a total of 98,610 patients, were included in our analysis. Most studies were found to have a low risk of bias and a good measure of applicability. Nine RAMs were evaluated. We discovered that the classic Baux; the revised Baux; and the Fatality by Longevity, APACHE II score, Measured Extent of burn, and Sex (FLAMES) scores presented with the highest discriminative power with there being no significant difference between the results presented by them [AUROCs (95% CI), 0.92 (0.90-0.95), 0.92 (0.90-0.93), 0.94 (0.91-0.97), respectively, with P < 0.00001 for all].

Conclusions

Many RAMs exist with no consensus on the optimal model to utilize and assess risk of mortality for burn patients. This study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the current RAMs' discriminative ability to predict mortality in patients with burn injuries. This meta-analysis demonstrated that RAMs designed for assessing mortality in individuals with burns have acceptable to great discriminative capacity, with the classic Baux, revised Baux, and FLAMES demonstrating superior discriminative performance in predicting death. FLAMES exhibited the highest discriminative ability among the RAMs studied.

SUBMITTER: Mrad MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9760622 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Risk Models to Predict Mortality in Burn Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Mrad Mohamed Amir MA Al Qurashi Abdullah A AA Shah Mardan Qutaiba N M QNM Al Jabr Faisal Ali FA Almenhali Ahmed A AA Bamakhrama Basma B Alsharif Bayan B AlEtebi Rakan Abdulkarim A RAA Zarkan Abdullah Hatem AH Kattan Ibrahim A IA Alsubaie Nasser S NS Gronfula Amin Ghazi AG

Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open 20221216 12

The predictive capability of various risk assessment models (RAMs) in evaluating the risk of mortality in burn patients is not well established. It is also unclear which RAM provides the highest discriminative ability and presents the highest clinical utility. We pooled all available studies to establish this validity and compare the predictive capability of the various RAMs.<h4>Methods</h4>We reviewed PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase from their inception up until December 2021 for studies evaluating ...[more]

PMID: 36569241

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposePregnancy-related critical illness leads to death for 3-14% of affected women. Although identifying patients at risk could facilitate preventive strategies, guide therapy, and help in clinical research, no prior systematic review of this literature exploring the validity of risk prediction models for maternal mortality exists. Therefore, we have systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed risk prediction models for maternal mortality.MethodsSearch strategy: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus, from inception to May 2017. Selection criteria: Trials or observational studies evaluating risk prediction models for maternal mortality. Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and methodological quality, and extracted data on prediction performance.ResultsThirty-eight studies that evaluated 12 different mortality prediction models were included. Mortality varied across the studies, with an average rate 10.4%, ranging from 0 to 41.7%. The Collaborative Integrated Pregnancy High-dependency Estimate of Risk (CIPHER) model and the Maternal Severity Index had the best performance, were developed and validated from studies of obstetric population with a low risk of bias. The CIPHER applies to critically ill obstetric patients (discrimination: area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) 0.823 (0.811-0.835), calibration: graphic plot [intercept-0.09, slope 0.92]). The Maternal Severity Index applies to hospitalized obstetric patients (discrimination: AUC 0.826 [0.802-0.851], calibration: standardized mortality ratio 1.02 [0.86-1.20]).ConclusionsDespite the high heterogeneity of the study populations and the limited number of studies validating the finally eligible prediction models, the CIPHER and the Maternal Severity Index are recommended for use among critically ill and hospitalized pregnant and postpartum women for risk adjustment in clinical research and quality improvement studies. Neither index has sufficient discrimination to be applicable for clinical decision making at the individual patient level.

Project description:BackgroundOlder haemodialysis patients accompany a high burden of functional impairment, limited life expectancy, and healthcare utilization. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate how various risk factors influenced the prognosis of haemodialysis patients in late life, which might contribute to decision making by patients and care providers.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central were searched systematically for studies evaluating the risk factors for mortality in elderly haemodialysis patients. Twenty-eight studies were included in the present systematic review. The factors included age, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, type of vascular access, dialysis initiation time, nutritional status and geriatric impairments. Geriatric impairments included frailty, cognitive or functional impairment and falls. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals were derived.ResultsFunctional impairment (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.20-1.75), cognitive impairment (OR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.32-1.62) and falls (OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.06-1.23) were significantly and independently associated with increased mortality in elderly haemodialysis patients. Low body mass index conferred a mortality risk (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.31-1.56) paralleling that of frailty as a marker of early death. The results also confirmed that the older (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.22-1.68) and sicker (in terms of Charlson comorbidity index) (OR = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.35-1.50) elderly haemodialysis patients were, the more likely they were to die. In addition, increased mortality was associated with early-start dialysis (OR = 1.18, 95% CI: 1.01-1.37) and with the use of a central venous catheter (OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.44-1.62).ConclusionsMultiple factors influence the risk of mortality in elderly patients undergoing haemodialysis. Geriatric impairment is related to poor outcome. Functional/cognitive impairment and falls in elderly dialysis patients are strongly and independently associated with mortality.

Project description:BackgroundSmoke inhalation injury increases overall burn mortality. Locally applied heparin attenuates lung injury in burn animal models of smoke inhalation. It is uncertain whether local treatment of heparin is benefit for burn patients with inhalation trauma. We systematically reviewed published clinical trial data to evaluate the effectiveness of nebulized heparin in treating burn patients with inhalation injury.MethodsA systematic search was undertaken in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, the Chinese Journals Full-text Database, the China Biomedical Literature Database and the Wanfang Database to obtain clinical controlled trails evaluating nebulized heparin in the treatment of burn patients with inhalation injury. Patient and clinical characteristics, interventions and physiological and clinical outcomes were recorded. Cochrane Risk of Bias Evaluation Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to evaluate data quality. Potential publication bias was assessed by Egger's test. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the stability of the results. The meta-analysis was conducted in R 3.5.1 software.ResultsNine trials were eligible for the systematic review and meta-analysis. Nebulized heparin can reduce lung injury and improve lung function in burn patients with inhalation injury without abnormal coagulation or bleeding, but the findings are still controversial. Mortality in the heparin-treated group was lower than that of the traditional treatment group (relative risk (RR) 0.75). The duration of mechanical ventilation (DOMV) was shorter in the heparin-treated group compared to the traditional treatment group (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.78). Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter than that in the traditional treatment group (SMD -0.42), but incidence rates of pneumonia and unplanned reintubation were not significantly different in the study groups (RRs 0.97 and 0.88, respectively). No statistically significant publication biases were detected for the above clinical endpoints (p > 0.05).ConclusionsBased on conventional aerosol therapy, heparin nebulization can further reduce lung injury, improve lung function, shorten DOMV and length of hospital stay, and reduce mortality, although it does not reduce the incidence of pneumonia and/or the unplanned reintubation rate.

Dataset Information

Risk Models to Predict Mortality in Burn Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Risk Models to Predict Mortality in Burn Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets