4.2 Article

Evaluation of SCORTEN on a Cohort of Patients With Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis Included in the RegiSCAR Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF BURN CARE & RESEARCH
卷 32, 期 2, 页码 237-245

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1097/BCR.0b013e31820aafbc

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Commission [QLRT-200201738]
  2. GIS-Institut des Maladies Rares
  3. INSERM in France [4CH09G]
  4. Bayer Vital
  5. Boehringer-Ingelheim
  6. Cephalon
  7. GlaxoSmithKline
  8. MSD Sharp and Dohme
  9. Merck
  10. Novartis
  11. Pfizer
  12. Roche
  13. Sanofi-Aventis
  14. Servier
  15. Else Kroner-resenius-Foundation
  16. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [FOR 534]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the severity-of-illness score called SCORTEN with respect to its predictive ability and by using data obtained in the RegiSCAR study, the most comprehensive European registry of patients with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN). For advanced comparisons, an auxiliary score (AS) was defined using data obtained in a previous study. Three hundred sixty-nine patients with SJS/TEN were included in RegiSCAR between 2003 and 2005. The data needed for calculation of SCORTEN were available for 45% of patients. The score revealed a moderate predictive ability with a slight underestimation of the total number of in-hospital deaths by 11%, an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.75, and a Brier score of 0.14. Problems could be seen by analyzing subgroups such as patients with TEN. The AS was better calibrated but discriminated worse (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.72; Brier score: 0.14). With the help of a refined score derived from SCORTEN and AS, potential for a possible improvement could be demonstrated. The authors were able to show that the predictive ability of SCORTEN is acceptable. Although improvement might be possible, SCORTEN remains the tool of choice, whereas AS might be an alternative in retrospective settings with missing laboratory data. (J Burn Care Res 2011; 32: 237-245)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据