Literature DB >> 21940104

Prognostic scoring systems in burns: a review.

N N Sheppard1, S Hemington-Gorse, O P Shelley, B Philp, P Dziewulski.   

Abstract

Survival after burn has steadily improved over the last few decades. Patient mortality is, however, still the primary outcome measure for burn care. Scoring systems aim to use the most predictive premorbid and injury factors to yield an expected likelihood of death for a given patient. Age, burn surface area and inhalational injury remain the mainstays of burn prognostication, but their relative weighting varies between scoring systems. Biochemical markers may hold the key to predicting outcomes in burns. Alternatively, the incorporation of global scales such as those used in the general intensive care unit may have relevance in burn patients. Outcomes other than mortality are increasingly relevant, especially as mortality after burns continues to improve. The evolution of prognostic scoring in burns is reviewed with specific reference to the more widely regarded measures. Alternative approaches to burn prognostication are reviewed along with evidence for the use of outcomes other than mortality. The purpose and utility of prognostic scoring in general is discussed with relevance to its potential uses in audit, research and at the bedside.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21940104     DOI: 10.1016/j.burns.2011.07.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Burns        ISSN: 0305-4179            Impact factor:   2.744


  28 in total

1.  Comparison of mortality prediction models and validation of SAPS II in critically ill burns patients.

Authors:  O Pantet; M Faouzi; N Brusselaers; A Vernay; M M Berger
Journal:  Ann Burns Fire Disasters       Date:  2016-06-30

2.  Improved survival with an innovative approach to the treatment of severely burned patients: development of a burn treatment manual.

Authors:  S Morisada; N Nosaka; K Tsukahara; T Ugawa; K Sato; Y Ujike
Journal:  Ann Burns Fire Disasters       Date:  2015-09-30

3.  Comparison of six outcome prediction models in an adult burn population in a developing country.

Authors:  S H Salehi; K As'adi; A Abbaszadeh-Kasbi; M S Isfeedvajani; N Khodaei
Journal:  Ann Burns Fire Disasters       Date:  2017-03-31

4.  Predictors of inhalation burn injury using fire site information.

Authors:  T Kaneko; H Tanaka; S Yamada; M Kitada; T Sakurai; M Harada; F Kimura; T Takahashi; S Kasaoka
Journal:  Ann Burns Fire Disasters       Date:  2017-12-31

5.  Ubiquitin Urine Levels in Burn Patients.

Authors:  Yee M Wong; Heather M LaPorte; Lauren J Albee; Todd A Baker; Harold H Bach; P Geoff Vana; Ann E Evans; Richard L Gamelli; Matthias Majetschak
Journal:  J Burn Care Res       Date:  2017 Jan/Feb       Impact factor: 1.845

6.  Prognosis value of revised Baux score among burn patients in developing country.

Authors:  Nguyen N Lam; Ngo T Hung; Ngo M Duc
Journal:  Int J Burns Trauma       Date:  2021-06-15

7.  Characteristics of Patients Who Admitted to the Emergency Department Because of Burns Due to Dens Liquids Such as Hot Milk/Oil.

Authors:  Atif Bayramoglu; M Talip Sener; Zeynep Cakir; Sahin Aslan; Mucahit Emet; Ayhan Akoz
Journal:  Eurasian J Med       Date:  2015-07-07

8.  Survival after burn in a sub-Saharan burn unit: challenges and opportunities.

Authors:  Anna F Tyson; Laura P Boschini; Michelle M Kiser; Jonathan C Samuel; Steven N Mjuweni; Bruce A Cairns; Anthony G Charles
Journal:  Burns       Date:  2013-06-13       Impact factor: 2.744

9.  A comparison of injury scoring systems in predicting burn mortality.

Authors:  B Halgas; C Bay; K Foster
Journal:  Ann Burns Fire Disasters       Date:  2018-06-30

10.  Redefining the outcomes to resources ratio for burn patient triage in a mass casualty.

Authors:  Sandra Taylor; James Jeng; Jeffrey R Saffle; Soman Sen; David G Greenhalgh; Tina L Palmieri
Journal:  J Burn Care Res       Date:  2014 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.845

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.