MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396223468 · doi:10.1186/s12873-024-00988-x

Association of inflammatory biomarkers with overall survival in burn patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4396223468 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shima Nourigheimasi, E. Yazdani, Arshin Ghaedi, Monireh Khanzadeh, Brandon Lucke‐Wold, Emma Dioso, Aida Bazrgar, Mehrnoosh Ebadi, Shokoufeh Khanzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Emergency Medicine · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBurn Injury Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisInternal medicineProcalcitoninConfidence intervalStrictly standardized mean differenceBiomarkerSepsis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The inflammatory response to burn injuries can lead to organ dysfunction that ultimately results in increased mortality and morbidity. This meta-analysis was conducted to determine the efficacy of inflammatory biomarkers, including the neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet to lymphocyte ratio (PLR), procalcitonin (PCT), and C-reactive protein (CRP) as predictive tools of mortality among burn patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The biomarker levels of survivors and non-survivors were consolidated according to guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Three main databases were searched electronically: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus, on December 8, 2022. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate and score the methodological quality of the included studies. The standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was utilized. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis, (3636 total burn patients), of whom 2878 survived. We found that deceased burn patients had elevated levels of NLR (SMD = 0.60, 95% CI; 0.19-1.00, P < 0.001), CRP (SMD = 0.80, 95% CI; 0.02-1.58, P = 0.04), and PCT (SMD = 0.85, 95% CI; 0.45-1.24, P < 0.001), compared to survivors. However, we found no association between PLR and mortality among burn patients (SMD = 0.00, 95% CI; -0.14-0.15, P < 0.001). In addition, CRP was significantly higher in non-survivors (SMD = 0.80, 95% CI; 0.02-1.58, P =0.04). Similar results were also found about PCT (SMD = 0.85, 95% CI; 0.45-1.24, P < 0.001). When we analyzed the PCT data, collected in the first 24-48 hours, we found similar results; the PCT level was significantly higher in non-survivors in the immediate postinjury-period (SMD = 0.67, 95% CI; 0.31-1.02, P < 0.001). There was no publication bias among studies on the role of NLR in burn (Egger's test P = 0.91). The based cut-off values for NLR (13), CRP (71), and PCT (1.77) yielded sensitivities of 69.2%, 100%, and 93.33%, and specificities of 76%, 72.22%, and 72.22% respectively. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: PCT is a marker of sepsis, therefore its elevated level is presumably associated with a higher incidence and severity of sepsis among non-survivors. In addition, NLR and CRP are promising biomarkers for predicting and guiding prevention against burn deaths in clinical settings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.042
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.078
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Emergency MedicineSame topicBurn Injury Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207