Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMC

Sepsis Definitions in Burns

Meza-Escobar LE., Rehou S., Jeschke MG.

Narrative Review on Burns, published in Surg Infect (Larchmt) (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Surg Infect (Larchmt) (2021)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
33026946
PMCID
PMC7826420
DOI
10.1089/sur.2020.297
Citations
12

Abstract (original English)

Background: Sepsis is the leading cause of death in burns. Despite its importance, sepsis lacks a proper definition. An established definition will lead to early and accurate diagnosis, prompt treatment, and a reduced mortality rate. The aim of this work is to discuss current definitions and to look ahead at novel definitions with clinical implications. Method: A review of the current understanding of sepsis definitions in burns. Results: Adaptation of sepsis definitions in the general population and specific burn definitions have gotten better but still need improvements and, potentially, incorporation of molecular, laboratory, patient-specific, and clinical factors. This work includes the history, evolution, and predictive value of current definitions of sepsis in burns. A review of current and future markers of sepsis and potentially useful definitions are presented. Conclusions: Sepsis definitions have evolved over the last decades and will continue to do so. We believe the best definition in burn patients is the Sepsis-3 that was developed originally for critically ill patients. However, there are several studies investigating more specific definitions with better sensitivity and specificity.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
HumansSepsisBurnsCritical IllnessSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkers

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research