We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
REVIEW
Reliability of the Laboratory Risk Indicator in Necrotising Fasciitis (LRINEC) score.
BACKGROUND: The LRINEC score was introduced in 2004 but it has not yet been incorporated as a reliable diagnostic tool in the management of Necrotising Fasciitis. NF is uncommon and proportionately the evidence is limited, but the contradictory literature has resulted in varying individual concepts and clinical practices. This article is aimed to evaluate the reliability of the LRINEC score and determine its effectiveness based on the current available evidence.
METHODS: Eighteen clinical studies published during 2004-2018 were identified after an extended literature search and critically appraised to determine the validity, reliability and applicability of the individual pieces of evidence. The recommendations for practice were formulated after summative analysis of the evidence.
RESULTS: The systemic review and observational studies report the LRINEC score has a variable range of sensitivity (43.2-80%), positive predictive value (57-64%) and negative predictive value (42-86%) which is lower than the initial results by Wong et al. (2004). The LRINEC score ≥6 correlates well with diagnosis of NF but 7.1 was found to be statistically significant. Higher LRINEC score correlates with higher SOFA score, prolonged ICU and hospital stay, and mortality. It is not sensitive in immunocompromised patients.
CONCLUSIONS: There is Level 3 evidence that LRINEC score is a reliable tool which can aid the clinical diagnosis of NF. It can stratify the high-risk patients and predict outcome; however, it should be correlated with the clinical assessment and radiological diagnostic modalities should be simultaneously used when doubt exists (grade C).
METHODS: Eighteen clinical studies published during 2004-2018 were identified after an extended literature search and critically appraised to determine the validity, reliability and applicability of the individual pieces of evidence. The recommendations for practice were formulated after summative analysis of the evidence.
RESULTS: The systemic review and observational studies report the LRINEC score has a variable range of sensitivity (43.2-80%), positive predictive value (57-64%) and negative predictive value (42-86%) which is lower than the initial results by Wong et al. (2004). The LRINEC score ≥6 correlates well with diagnosis of NF but 7.1 was found to be statistically significant. Higher LRINEC score correlates with higher SOFA score, prolonged ICU and hospital stay, and mortality. It is not sensitive in immunocompromised patients.
CONCLUSIONS: There is Level 3 evidence that LRINEC score is a reliable tool which can aid the clinical diagnosis of NF. It can stratify the high-risk patients and predict outcome; however, it should be correlated with the clinical assessment and radiological diagnostic modalities should be simultaneously used when doubt exists (grade C).
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app