• Burns · Apr 2024

    A comparative study of the predictive value of four models for death in patients with severe burns.

    • Huayong Chen, Xingwang Wu, Lijin Zou, Youlai Zhang, Rufei Deng, Zhenyu Jiang, and Guohua Xin.
    • No.17, Yongwai Zhengjie, Donghu District, Nanchang, Jiangxi, 330006, China; The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, China; Master of Medicine, Yongwai Zhengjie, Donghu District, Nanchang, Jiangxi 330006, China.
    • Burns. 2024 Apr 1; 50 (3): 550560550-560.

    ObjectiveTo assess the prognostic value of the Ryan score, Belgian Outcome of Burn Injury (BOBI) score,revised Baux (rBaux) score, and a new model (a Logit(P)-based scoring method created in 2020) for predicting mortality risk in patients with extremely severe burns and to conduct a comparative analysis.MethodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 599 burn patients who met the inclusion criteria and were admitted to the burn unit of the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from 2017 to 2022. Relevant information was collected, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were plotted for each of the four models in assessing mortality in these burn patients using both age-stratified and unstratified forms. The ROC curve section was further compared with the area under the curve (AUC), optimal cutoff value, as well as its sensitivity and specificity. Additionally, the quality of the AUC was assessed using the Delong test.ResultAmong the patients who met the inclusion criteria, 532 were in the survival group and 67 in the death group. Irrespective of age stratification, the novel model exhibited superior performance with an AUC of 0.868 (95% CI: 0.838-0.894) among all four models predicting mortality risk in included patients, and also demonstrated better AUC quality than other models; the calibration curves showed that the accuracy of all four models was good; the DCA curves showed that the clinical utility of the novel model and rBuax score were better. In the comparison of four scoring models across different age groups, the new model demonstrated the largest AUC in both 0-19 years (0.954, 95% CI 0.914-0.979) and 20-59 years groups (0.838, 95% CI 0.793-0.877), while rBuax score exhibited the highest AUC in ≥ 60 years group (0.708, 95% CI of 0.602-0.800). The calibration curves showed that the four models exhibited greater accuracy within the age range of 20-59 years, while the DCA curves indicated that both the novel model and rBuax score scale displayed better prediction in both the 20-59 and ≥ 60 years groups.ConclusionsAll four models demonstrate accurate and effective prognostication for patients with severe burns. Both the novel model and rBaux score exhibit enhanced prediction utility. In terms of the model itself alone, the new model is not simpler than, for example, the rBaux score, and whether it can be applied clinicallyinvolves further study.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…