RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
Background Hip fracture is a major medical and surgical topic and is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Older women, especially those with osteoporosis, are at an increased risk for hip fractures. Multiple studies have shown the effect of osteoporosis on the refracture rate among the elderly population. Therefore, selecting a targeted population for screening and treating osteoporosis has an essential role in decreasing the hip fracture rate. This study aimed to determine the association between osteoporosis treatment and refracture rate among patients with hip fractures at King Abdulaziz Medical City, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Methods Collected data included patient demographics (men: ≥55 years old; women: ≥50 years old), the used osteoporosis investigation method, osteoporosis treatment history, presence of comorbidities, and refracture as a primary outcome. The refracture rate among patients with hip fracture was calculated and used to determine the association between hip refracture and osteoporosis. Results Our study included a total of 292 patients who presented to our hospital due to hip fractures. The patients were divided into two groups, the osteoporotic and non-osteoporotic groups. These groups were then compared. There was no statistical significance between osteoporosis and hip refracture (p = 0.721), and there was no association between the treatment of osteoporosis and hip refracture (p = 0.493). Statistical difference was found between patients who had undergone dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scan and were not treated for osteoporosis (p = 0.00). Lastly, the mortality of the refracture group was 10%, while it was 11% in the no-refracture group (p = 1.00). Conclusion Morbidity and mortality rates are higher among patients with hip fractures. Our study showed that there was no association between hip refracture rate and osteoporosis whether the patient is treated for osteoporosis or not. We recommend a systematic review that can include more studies in this field to acquire more definitive results regarding this topic.
