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
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence
Balshem, H., Helfand, M., Schünemann, H. J., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Vist, G. E., Falck-Ytter, Y., Meerpohl, J., & Norris, S. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015 · Cited by 8,285
Fernando, S. M., Tran, A., Taljaard, M., Cheng, W., Rochwerg, B., Seely, A. J. E., & Perry, J. J. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m17-2820 · Cited by 281
Self-citation
Cited by
Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections
Stevens, D. L., Bryant, A. E., & Goldstein, E. J. (2021) · Infectious Disease Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.idc.2020.10.004 · Cited by 113
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
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.