发展中国家烧伤死亡率预测的两种方法中哪种更好?修订版鲍氏指数还是修订版简略烧伤严重程度指数?

IF 0.8 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Sheerin Shah, Renu Verma, Rajinder K Mittal, Ramneesh Garg
{"title":"发展中国家烧伤死亡率预测的两种方法中哪种更好?修订版鲍氏指数还是修订版简略烧伤严重程度指数?","authors":"Sheerin Shah, Renu Verma, Rajinder K Mittal, Ramneesh Garg","doi":"10.4103/ijabmr.ijabmr_350_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Burns is one of the leading causes of mortality in developing countries like India. Most of the major burns requiring hospital care are not triaged adequately for the use of medical resources. An efficient mortality predicting scale would not only help in better care to those who will benefit the most but also make it easy to explain to patient's attendants. Among the various tools, revised Baux (rBaux) and modified Abbreviated Burn Severity Index (ABSI) are two most commonly used scales in developed nations. We proposed this study to analyze the reliability of these two scoring scales in our burn population.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to retrospectively study the two scoring systems and analyze them for their reliability in predicting mortality compared to actual observed mortality in each case.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This study was conducted on all burn patients admitted to the intensive care unit of our hospital. Data on their demographic profile, total burn surface area, thickness of burns, inhalational injury, and other comorbidities were collected from files. rBaux and modified ABSI (mABSI) were calculated. The end result in the form of survival or nonsurvival was also recorded. Appropriate statistical analysis using Mann-Whitney <i>U</i>-test, Chi-square test, and receiver operator characteristic curve was done to look for a better scoring system out of the two.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 504 patients were included in the study, out of which 337 were survivors. Female gender was not a risk factor for mortality in our study. The median rBaux score in the survivor group was 100 (80-110) and in nonsurvivor group was 111 (103-123). The median mABSI score in the survivor group was 8 (7-9) and in nonsurvivor group was 10 (9-11). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve shows mABSI having better specificity for predicting mortality. rBAUX, though more sensitive, overestimates mortality than actual observed mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>mABSI predicts mortality better than rBaux. A multicentric prospective study is recommended for mABSI to be used as a standard mortality predictor in burns in India.</p>","PeriodicalId":13727,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research","volume":"14 1","pages":"7-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10947759/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Better among the two for Burn Mortality Prediction in Developing Nations: Revised Baux or Modified Abbreviated Burn Severity Index?\",\"authors\":\"Sheerin Shah, Renu Verma, Rajinder K Mittal, Ramneesh Garg\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ijabmr.ijabmr_350_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Burns is one of the leading causes of mortality in developing countries like India. Most of the major burns requiring hospital care are not triaged adequately for the use of medical resources. An efficient mortality predicting scale would not only help in better care to those who will benefit the most but also make it easy to explain to patient's attendants. Among the various tools, revised Baux (rBaux) and modified Abbreviated Burn Severity Index (ABSI) are two most commonly used scales in developed nations. We proposed this study to analyze the reliability of these two scoring scales in our burn population.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to retrospectively study the two scoring systems and analyze them for their reliability in predicting mortality compared to actual observed mortality in each case.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This study was conducted on all burn patients admitted to the intensive care unit of our hospital. Data on their demographic profile, total burn surface area, thickness of burns, inhalational injury, and other comorbidities were collected from files. rBaux and modified ABSI (mABSI) were calculated. The end result in the form of survival or nonsurvival was also recorded. Appropriate statistical analysis using Mann-Whitney <i>U</i>-test, Chi-square test, and receiver operator characteristic curve was done to look for a better scoring system out of the two.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 504 patients were included in the study, out of which 337 were survivors. Female gender was not a risk factor for mortality in our study. The median rBaux score in the survivor group was 100 (80-110) and in nonsurvivor group was 111 (103-123). The median mABSI score in the survivor group was 8 (7-9) and in nonsurvivor group was 10 (9-11). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve shows mABSI having better specificity for predicting mortality. rBAUX, though more sensitive, overestimates mortality than actual observed mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>mABSI predicts mortality better than rBaux. A multicentric prospective study is recommended for mABSI to be used as a standard mortality predictor in burns in India.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"7-11\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10947759/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijabmr.ijabmr_350_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Applied and Basic Medical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijabmr.ijabmr_350_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在印度等发展中国家,烧伤是导致死亡的主要原因之一。大多数需要住院治疗的重大烧伤都没有进行适当的分流,以利用医疗资源。一个有效的死亡率预测量表不仅有助于为那些受益最大的人提供更好的护理,还便于向病人的护理人员解释。在各种工具中,修订版Baux(rBaux)和修订版简略烧伤严重程度指数(ABSI)是发达国家最常用的两种量表。目的:本研究旨在对这两种评分系统进行回顾性研究,并分析它们在预测死亡率方面的可靠性,并与实际观察到的死亡率进行比较:本研究针对我院重症监护室收治的所有烧伤患者。从档案中收集了患者的人口统计学特征、烧伤总面积、烧伤厚度、吸入性损伤和其他合并症等数据。此外,还记录了存活或未存活的最终结果。使用曼-惠特尼 U 检验、卡方检验和受体运算特征曲线进行了适当的统计分析,以寻找两种评分系统中更好的评分系统:研究共纳入 504 名患者,其中 337 人为幸存者。在我们的研究中,女性不是死亡率的风险因素。幸存者组的 rBaux 评分中位数为 100(80-110),非幸存者组的 rBaux 评分中位数为 111(103-123)。幸存者组的 mABSI 中位数为 8(7-9)分,非幸存者组为 10(9-11)分。接受者操作特征曲线下的面积显示,mABSI 在预测死亡率方面具有更好的特异性,而 rBAUX 虽然更敏感,但却比实际观察到的死亡率高估了死亡率。建议开展多中心前瞻性研究,将 mABSI 用作印度烧伤死亡率的标准预测指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Better among the two for Burn Mortality Prediction in Developing Nations: Revised Baux or Modified Abbreviated Burn Severity Index?

Background: Burns is one of the leading causes of mortality in developing countries like India. Most of the major burns requiring hospital care are not triaged adequately for the use of medical resources. An efficient mortality predicting scale would not only help in better care to those who will benefit the most but also make it easy to explain to patient's attendants. Among the various tools, revised Baux (rBaux) and modified Abbreviated Burn Severity Index (ABSI) are two most commonly used scales in developed nations. We proposed this study to analyze the reliability of these two scoring scales in our burn population.

Aim: This study aimed to retrospectively study the two scoring systems and analyze them for their reliability in predicting mortality compared to actual observed mortality in each case.

Materials and methods: This study was conducted on all burn patients admitted to the intensive care unit of our hospital. Data on their demographic profile, total burn surface area, thickness of burns, inhalational injury, and other comorbidities were collected from files. rBaux and modified ABSI (mABSI) were calculated. The end result in the form of survival or nonsurvival was also recorded. Appropriate statistical analysis using Mann-Whitney U-test, Chi-square test, and receiver operator characteristic curve was done to look for a better scoring system out of the two.

Results: A total of 504 patients were included in the study, out of which 337 were survivors. Female gender was not a risk factor for mortality in our study. The median rBaux score in the survivor group was 100 (80-110) and in nonsurvivor group was 111 (103-123). The median mABSI score in the survivor group was 8 (7-9) and in nonsurvivor group was 10 (9-11). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve shows mABSI having better specificity for predicting mortality. rBAUX, though more sensitive, overestimates mortality than actual observed mortality.

Conclusion: mABSI predicts mortality better than rBaux. A multicentric prospective study is recommended for mABSI to be used as a standard mortality predictor in burns in India.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信