Jin Yong Shin1, Hyung Suk Yi2. 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Medical School of Chonbuk National University, Jeonju, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Kosin University College of Medicine, Busan, Republic of Korea. Electronic address: sencha21@naver.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Accurate assessment of burn depth is important for determination of treatment modality. Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) is known to be an objective and effective measurement tool in burn depth assessment. Our study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of LDI across enrolled studies and subgroups. METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Data from LDI cases were extracted from all primary studies and categorized into four cell values (true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives). Subgroup analyses were performed according to perfusion units of LDI, clinical criteria of superficial and deep burns during the treatment period, and publication date of enrolled studies. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 321 publications. After screening, 10 articles were selected for review. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of LDI in all enrolled studies and subgroups were found to be similarly high. However, the sensitivity of LDI in our meta-analysis was not as high as that identified in previous studies. CONCLUSION: Although LDI in burn depth assessment was identified as an accurate measurement tool in this meta-analysis, careful clinical assessment should be performed along with LDI in patients with deep burns.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Accurate assessment of burn depth is important for determination of treatment modality. Laser Doppler imaging (LDI) is known to be an objective and effective measurement tool in burn depth assessment. Our study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of LDI across enrolled studies and subgroups. METHODS: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Data from LDI cases were extracted from all primary studies and categorized into four cell values (true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives). Subgroup analyses were performed according to perfusion units of LDI, clinical criteria of superficial and deep burns during the treatment period, and publication date of enrolled studies. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 321 publications. After screening, 10 articles were selected for review. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of LDI in all enrolled studies and subgroups were found to be similarly high. However, the sensitivity of LDI in our meta-analysis was not as high as that identified in previous studies. CONCLUSION: Although LDI in burn depth assessment was identified as an accurate measurement tool in this meta-analysis, careful clinical assessment should be performed along with LDI in patients with deep burns.
Authors: Aba Lőrincz; Alex Váradi; Péter Hegyi; Zoltán Rumbus; Máté Tuba; Anna Gabriella Lamberti; Margit Varjú-Solymár; Andrea Párniczky; Bálint Erőss; András Garami; Gergő Józsa Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2022-04-21
Authors: Hendrik Jan Ankersmit; Thomas Haider; Maria Laggner; Marie-Therese Lingitz; Dragan Copic; Martin Direder; Katharina Klas; Daniel Bormann; Alfred Gugerell; Bernhard Moser; Christine Radtke; Stefan Hacker; Michael Mildner Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 4.379