缩短烧伤严重程度指数和修订Baux评分在印度南部三级医疗中心住院的烧伤患者死亡率预测中的敏感性和特异性

Naren Shetty, Narendra S. Mashalkar, Sunderraj Ellur, Rajeswari Dharmarajan, S. Selvam
{"title":"缩短烧伤严重程度指数和修订Baux评分在印度南部三级医疗中心住院的烧伤患者死亡率预测中的敏感性和特异性","authors":"Naren Shetty, Narendra S. Mashalkar, Sunderraj Ellur, Rajeswari Dharmarajan, S. Selvam","doi":"10.4103/ijb.ijb_15_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Mortality still remains the most significant adverse outcome encountered ever since the inception of burn management despite significant advances. Predicting mortality in the initial stages by mortality prediction models can help in many ways. Abbreviated Burn Severity Index (ABSI) and Revised Baux Score (RBS) are two commonly used models. However, these mortality prediction models have varied levels of sensitivity and specificity when applied in different clinical settings. Hence, validation in a particular clinical setting becomes important before using it. Our purpose was to understand the sensitivity and specificity of ABSI and RBS in mortality prediction in our tertiary care center. Methods: Data of all burn patients admitted into our tertiary care center from January 2018 to December 2020 were retrospectively collected. The ABSI and RBS scores were calculated for each patient. The scores between survivors and nonsurvivors were compared using statistical methods. Sensitivity and specificity of ABSI and RBS was calculated. The Receiver Operating Characteristic curve was plotted, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to assess the accuracy of each model. Results: Three hundred and fifty patients were included in the study sample (Mean age: 27.3 years. Avg TBSA: 17.63%). Forty-seven patients had inhalational injury and 131 patients had full thickness burn. The mortality rate was 12.3% (43 patients). Sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for ABSI were 88%, 93%, and 0.96 and that for RBS were 74%, 96%, and 0.93, respectively. The optimal cutoff for ABSI and RBS was 7 and 85, respectively. Conclusion: Both ABSI and RBS mortality prediction models have acceptable levels of sensitivity and specificity in mortality prediction.","PeriodicalId":13336,"journal":{"name":"Indian journal of burns","volume":"30 1","pages":"78 - 83"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sensitivity and specificity of abbreviated burn severity index and revised Baux score in mortality prediction in burn patients admitted to a tertiary care center in South India\",\"authors\":\"Naren Shetty, Narendra S. Mashalkar, Sunderraj Ellur, Rajeswari Dharmarajan, S. Selvam\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ijb.ijb_15_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Mortality still remains the most significant adverse outcome encountered ever since the inception of burn management despite significant advances. Predicting mortality in the initial stages by mortality prediction models can help in many ways. Abbreviated Burn Severity Index (ABSI) and Revised Baux Score (RBS) are two commonly used models. However, these mortality prediction models have varied levels of sensitivity and specificity when applied in different clinical settings. Hence, validation in a particular clinical setting becomes important before using it. Our purpose was to understand the sensitivity and specificity of ABSI and RBS in mortality prediction in our tertiary care center. Methods: Data of all burn patients admitted into our tertiary care center from January 2018 to December 2020 were retrospectively collected. The ABSI and RBS scores were calculated for each patient. The scores between survivors and nonsurvivors were compared using statistical methods. Sensitivity and specificity of ABSI and RBS was calculated. The Receiver Operating Characteristic curve was plotted, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to assess the accuracy of each model. Results: Three hundred and fifty patients were included in the study sample (Mean age: 27.3 years. Avg TBSA: 17.63%). Forty-seven patients had inhalational injury and 131 patients had full thickness burn. The mortality rate was 12.3% (43 patients). Sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for ABSI were 88%, 93%, and 0.96 and that for RBS were 74%, 96%, and 0.93, respectively. The optimal cutoff for ABSI and RBS was 7 and 85, respectively. Conclusion: Both ABSI and RBS mortality prediction models have acceptable levels of sensitivity and specificity in mortality prediction.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13336,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian journal of burns\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"78 - 83\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian journal of burns\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijb.ijb_15_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian journal of burns","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijb.ijb_15_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:死亡率仍然是自烧伤管理开始以来遇到的最重要的不良后果,尽管取得了重大进展。通过死亡率预测模型在最初阶段预测死亡率可以在许多方面提供帮助。简略烧伤严重指数(ABSI)和修正Baux评分(RBS)是两种常用的模型。然而,当应用于不同的临床环境时,这些死亡率预测模型具有不同程度的敏感性和特异性。因此,在使用它之前,在特定的临床环境中进行验证变得很重要。我们的目的是了解ABSI和RBS在三级保健中心预测死亡率的敏感性和特异性。方法:回顾性收集2018年1月至2020年12月我院三级保健中心收治的所有烧伤患者的资料。计算每位患者的ABSI和RBS评分。用统计学方法比较幸存者和非幸存者之间的得分。计算ABSI和RBS的敏感性和特异性。绘制受试者工作特征曲线,计算曲线下面积(AUC),评估各模型的准确性。结果:350例患者纳入研究样本,平均年龄27.3岁。平均TBSA: 17.63%)。吸入性损伤47例,全层烧伤131例。死亡率为12.3%(43例)。ABSI的敏感性、特异性和AUC分别为88%、93%和0.96,RBS的敏感性、特异性和AUC分别为74%、96%和0.93。ABSI和RBS的最佳临界值分别为7和85。结论:ABSI和RBS两种死亡率预测模型均具有可接受的敏感性和特异性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sensitivity and specificity of abbreviated burn severity index and revised Baux score in mortality prediction in burn patients admitted to a tertiary care center in South India
Background: Mortality still remains the most significant adverse outcome encountered ever since the inception of burn management despite significant advances. Predicting mortality in the initial stages by mortality prediction models can help in many ways. Abbreviated Burn Severity Index (ABSI) and Revised Baux Score (RBS) are two commonly used models. However, these mortality prediction models have varied levels of sensitivity and specificity when applied in different clinical settings. Hence, validation in a particular clinical setting becomes important before using it. Our purpose was to understand the sensitivity and specificity of ABSI and RBS in mortality prediction in our tertiary care center. Methods: Data of all burn patients admitted into our tertiary care center from January 2018 to December 2020 were retrospectively collected. The ABSI and RBS scores were calculated for each patient. The scores between survivors and nonsurvivors were compared using statistical methods. Sensitivity and specificity of ABSI and RBS was calculated. The Receiver Operating Characteristic curve was plotted, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated to assess the accuracy of each model. Results: Three hundred and fifty patients were included in the study sample (Mean age: 27.3 years. Avg TBSA: 17.63%). Forty-seven patients had inhalational injury and 131 patients had full thickness burn. The mortality rate was 12.3% (43 patients). Sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for ABSI were 88%, 93%, and 0.96 and that for RBS were 74%, 96%, and 0.93, respectively. The optimal cutoff for ABSI and RBS was 7 and 85, respectively. Conclusion: Both ABSI and RBS mortality prediction models have acceptable levels of sensitivity and specificity in mortality prediction.
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
5
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
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