MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2905786141 · doi:10.1097/01.asw.0000550458.48419.d5

Deep Burns: Comparing the Developed and Developing World

2018· article· en· W2905786141 sur OpenAlexaff
R. Gary Sibbald, Elizabeth A. Ayello

Notice bibliographique

RevueAdvances in Skin & Wound Care · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Établissements canadiensUniversity of TorontoToronto Public Health
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineIncidence (geometry)Injury preventionPopulationEmergency medicineOccupational safety and healthMedical emergencyPoison controlHealth careBurn injurySuicide preventionMortality rateFamily medicineSurgeryEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

We dedicate this editorial to the victims of the horrific fires in California and to the heroic efforts of the firefighters, first responders, and healthcare professionals helping those in need. In this issue of Advances, Dr Michael Hermans’ continuing education article documents the incidence of burn injuries in the United States. In a developed country of 329 million persons, there are an estimated 40,000 burn injury hospitalizations annually; 60% of these patients receive care in specialized burn centers.1 It is important that proper wound care is delivered to minimize painful disfiguring sequelae. Deep partial-thickness burns benefit from early excisional surgery after patients have been stabilized medically. In all populations, young children and older adults are at the greatest risk of burn-associated morbidity and mortality. In the US, one civilian fire death occurs every 2 hours 41 minutes and the odds of an American dying from exposure to fire, flames, or smoke are 1 in 1,442.1 That said, the survival rate based on data from the National Burn Repository for 2015 is 96.8%. Most burns occur at home (73%), and 68% of burn victims are male. The cause of on patients admitted to the hospital are: 43% fire/flame, 34% hot liquid scald, 9% contact with a hot solid surface, 4% electrical, 3% chemical, and 7% other.1 The same statistics are very different in the developing world. India has a population that is three times that of the United States, with around 1 billion persons as of 2004.2 That year, there were an estimated 700,000 to 800,000 individuals hospitalized for serious burns,2 or up to 20 times the number of hospitalizations in the United States! The World Health Organization reports that in Bangladesh almost 173,000 children are moderately or severely burned every year.3 Seventeen percent of children with burns in Bangladesh, Columbia, Egypt, and Pakistan incur a temporary disability, and 18% experience a permanent disability.3 Under poor socioeconomic conditions, burn care is often delayed and too expensive for many victims to receive treatment. There is also an additional high-risk Indian population of young females between the ages of 16 and 35 years who cook over open flames at floor level, often with faulty equipment and loose clothing susceptible to catching fire.2 To help address these unfortunate conditions, providers can access guidelines for burn care under austere conditions.4 The economic burden of burns in the developing world can be overcome with an integrated care plan mapped out with the Porter Model of Healthcare.5 This model emphasizes value for the healthcare dollar without a higher cost. To put the problem in perspective, the economic impact of burns was greater than $211 million for children in the United States in 2000, greater than $10.5 million in Norway for hospital burn management in 2007, and $26 million for burn care after kerosene cookstove incidents in South Africa every year.3 The principles of cost-effective burn management can be simplified using the “5 P’s” format, introduced in our December 2018 editorial:5Patients need improved education to overcome illiteracy and superstitions to receive proper medical treatment and institute safety measures in the home. Professionals need to develop dedicated expertise in burn care. Payers need improved infrastructure for disaster plans and implementation strategies to coordinate care in difficult situations. Policy makers need to facilitate the development of burn registries, centers of excellence, and a system change to link these centers at all levels of the healthcare system. Politicians need to pass legislation for adequate safety regulations and healthcare reforms supporting efficient systems that avoid delayed, siloed, and substandard care. If stakeholders work together to combine education, expertise, and efficiency, we can create a coordinated and integrated system to improve outcomes for patients with burns.FigureR. Gary Sibbald, MD, DSc (Hons), MEd, BSc, FRCPC (Med Derm), FAAD, MAPWCA, JMFigureElizabeth A. Ayello, PhD, RN, CWON, ETN, MAPWCA, FAAN

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,006
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,019

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0040,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,324
Écart entre enseignants0,300 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAdvances in Skin & Wound CareMême sujetBurn Injury Management and OutcomesTravaux en français237 207