ABSTRACT
The predictive capability of various risk assessment models (RAMs) in evaluating the risk of mortality in burn patients is not well established. It is also unclear which RAM provides the highest discriminative ability and presents the highest clinical utility. We pooled all available studies to establish this validity and compare the predictive capability of the various RAMs. Methods: We reviewed PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase from their inception up until December 2021 for studies evaluating risk of mortality in burn patients as stratified by RAMs. Data were pooled using random-effect models and presented as area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Results: Thirty-four studies, comprising of a total of 98,610 patients, were included in our analysis. Most studies were found to have a low risk of bias and a good measure of applicability. Nine RAMs were evaluated. We discovered that the classic Baux; the revised Baux; and the Fatality by Longevity, APACHE II score, Measured Extent of burn, and Sex (FLAMES) scores presented with the highest discriminative power with there being no significant difference between the results presented by them [AUROCs (95% CI), 0.92 (0.90-0.95), 0.92 (0.90-0.93), 0.94 (0.91-0.97), respectively, with P < 0.00001 for all]. Conclusions: Many RAMs exist with no consensus on the optimal model to utilize and assess risk of mortality for burn patients. This study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the current RAMs' discriminative ability to predict mortality in patients with burn injuries. This meta-analysis demonstrated that RAMs designed for assessing mortality in individuals with burns have acceptable to great discriminative capacity, with the classic Baux, revised Baux, and FLAMES demonstrating superior discriminative performance in predicting death. FLAMES exhibited the highest discriminative ability among the RAMs studied.
ABSTRACT
Background and aim Globally, there is a discrepancy in whether terminal cancer patients are early referred to palliative care service (PCS) or not. A late referral can lead to a delay in treating and palliating those patients in need. The aim of this study is to investigate the referral time patterns of advanced cancer patients to PCS in Princess Noorah Oncology Center (PNOC) at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. In addition, this study evaluates the factors that influence referral time to the palliative care unit (PCU), along with the overall survival rate. Methods This was a retrospective cross-sectional study (chart review) conducted at the inpatient unit in PNOC and included all patients referred to PCS between January 1st, 2016, and December 31, 2016. In total, 153 patients met the inclusion criteria, and their data were collected and analyzed. Results The median length of stay (LOS) was five days (95% CI: 3.85-6.15). Among the 153 patients, 22 (14.4%) died within 24 hours of enrollment to PCU. Patients who were referred to the PCU with non-metastasis disease had a median LOS of nine days, which is significantly longer than the median LOS in patients with metastatic disease (95% CI: 0.35-0.82, p=0.004), which indicates that they referred relatively earlier to PCU. The hazard ratio for death in patients with non-metastatic cancer stage was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.35-0.82, p=0.004). Conclusion Referral of advanced cancer patients to palliative care services occurs late in their disease course in our institution, like other institutions, with variation in LOS, which shorten their stay at palliative, as well as, affects their quality of life (QOL) and ability to plan or make a decision regarding their care. Education of the public and, most importantly, the medical community is needed.
