Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infection: Diagnostic Accuracy of Physical Examination, Imaging, and LRINEC Score: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Fernando, Shannon M., Tran, Alexandre, Cheng, Wei, Rochwerg, Bram, Kyeremanteng, Kwadwo, Seely, Andrew J. E., Inaba, Kenji, Perry, Jeffrey J.·2019·Annals of Surgery

Abstract

Objective: We sought to summarize accuracy of physical examination, imaging, and Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC) score in diagnosis of necrotizing soft tissue infection (NSTI) in adults with a soft tissue infection clinically concerning for NSTI. Summary of Background Data: NSTI is a life-threatening diagnosis. Delay to diagnosis and surgical management is associated with increased mortality. Methods: We searched 6 databases from inception through November 2017. We included English-language studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of testing or LRINEC Score. Outcome was NSTI confirmed by surgery or histopathology. Two reviewers screened all citations and extracted data independently. Summary measures were obtained from the Hierarchical Summary Receiver Operating Characteristic model. Results: From 2,290 citations, we included 23 studies (n = 5982). Of physical examination signs, pooled sensitivity and specificity for fever was 46.0% and 77.0% respectively, for hemorrhagic bullae 25.2% and 95.8%, and for hypotension 21.0% and 97.7%. Computed tomography (CT) had sensitivity of 88.5% and specificity of 93.3%, while plain radiography had sensitivity of 48.9% and specificity of 94.0%. Finally, LRINEC ≥ 6 had sensitivity of 68.2% and specificity of 84.8%, while LRINEC ≥ 8 had sensitivity of 40.8% and specificity of 94.9%. Conclusions: Absence of any 1 physical examination feature (eg, fever or hypotension) is not sufficient to rule-out NSTI. CT is superior to plain radiography. LRINEC had poor sensitivity, and should not be used to rule-out NSTI. Given the poor sensitivity of these tests, a high clinical suspicion warrants early surgical consultation for definitive diagnosis and management.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/sla.0000000000002774

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Fernando, S. M., Tran, A., Cheng, W., Rochwerg, B., Kyeremanteng, K., Seely, A. J. E., Inaba, K., & Perry, J. J.
Venue
Annals of Surgery
Published
2019-01
Volume
269
Issue
1
Pages
58-65
ISSN
  • 0003-4932 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-1140
OpenAlex
W2945087939
Cited by
309
References
3
FWCI
19.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infection: Diagnostic Accuracy of Physical Examination, Imaging, and LRINEC Score: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/sla.0000000000002774
The paper
Fernando, S. M., Tran, A., Cheng, W., Rochwerg, B., Kyeremanteng, K., Seely, A. J. E., Inaba, K., & Perry, J. J. (2019). Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infection: Diagnostic Accuracy of Physical Examination, Imaging, and LRINEC Score: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Annals of Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000002774

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.