PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Götz, Marlene Carina
AU  - Andharia, Dev
AU  - Malafi, Maria Eleni
AU  - Maniyar, Pankti
AU  - Raval, Dwija
AU  - Agrawal, Siddharth
AU  - Desai, Dev
TI  - Diagnostic accuracy of LRINEC score and vitals in Necrotising skin infection in clinical Surgical Scar Incision Infection: A meta-analysis
AID  - 10.1101/2023.06.16.23291501
DP  - 2023 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2023.06.16.23291501
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/18/2023.06.16.23291501.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/06/18/2023.06.16.23291501.full
AB  - Background Necrotizing soft tissue infection (NSTI) is a potentially fatal skin and soft tissue infection, characterized by fulminant tissue damage, systemic signs of toxicity, and high mortality with case fatality rates ranging from 14% to 41% over the last two decades. It can be challenging to diagnose NF in its initial phases as it frequently presents symptoms that are similar to those of other non-necrotic SSTIs, such as cellulitis. It is unclear how the different diagnostic imaging modalities should be used to evaluate patients who have a suspected NSTI and there are concerns about their accuracy and potential delays in surgical intervention. Therefore, we aimed to gather data on the sensitivity and specificity of physical findings of fever, hypotension as well as imaging techniques such as ultrasound (USG) and computed tomography (CT) scans, and the LRINEC score, in detecting Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections (NSTI) in patients.Methods Medical literature was comprehensively searched and reviewed without restrictions to particular study designs, or publication dates using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases for all relevant literature. The extraction of necessary data proceeded after specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. In this Meta-Analysis, a total of 49 RCTs with an aggregate of 11,520 cases were handpicked. wherein two writers independently assessed the caliber of each study as well as the use of the Cochrane tool for bias risk apprehension. The statistical software packages RevMan (Review Manager, version 5.3), SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 20), and Excel in Stata 14 were used to perform the statistical analyses.Results We calculated the sensitivity and specificity for each of the parameters. Here, USG has a sensitivity of 0.556 and specificity of 0.879, CT has a sensitivity of 0.932 and specificity of 0.849, and LRINEC Score >= 6 has a sensitivity of 0.59 and specificity of 0.849. we also calculated the same for physical signs like fever and hypotension.Conclusion we conclude that physical signs like fever and hypotension and LRINEC Score >= 6 are not advisable indicators, however, CT shows significant superior modality but it is not a cost-effective solution. USG is relatively reliable and cost-effective for the early diagnosis of NSTI.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study did not receive any fundingAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study being a meta-analysis has all the papers cited and referenced whose data was extracted to carry out said analysisI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript