↓ Skip to main content

The laboratory risk indicator for necrotizing fasciitis (LRINEC) scoring: the diagnostic and potential prognostic role

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The laboratory risk indicator for necrotizing fasciitis (LRINEC) scoring: the diagnostic and potential prognostic role
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13049-017-0359-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ayman El-Menyar, Mohammad Asim, Insolvisagan N. Mudali, Ahammed Mekkodathil, Rifat Latifi, Hassan Al-Thani

Abstract

Necrotizing fasciitis (NF) is a devastating soft tissue infection associated with potentially poor outcomes. The Laboratory Risk Indicator for Necrotizing Fasciitis (LRINEC) score has been introduced as a diagnostic tool for NF. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of LRINEC scoring in NF patients. A retrospective analysis was conducted for patients who were admitted with NF between 2000 and 2013. Based on LRINEC points, patients were classified into (Group 1: LRINEC < 6 and Group 2: LRINEC ≥ 6). The 2 groups were analyzed and compared. Primary outcomes were hospital length of stay, septic shock and hospital death. A total of 294 NF cases were identified with a mean age 50.9 ± 15 years. When compared to Group1, patients in Group 2 were 5 years older (p = 0.009), more likely to have diabetes mellitus (61 vs 41%, p < 0.001), Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection (p = 0.004), greater Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (11.5 ± 3 vs 8 ± 2, p = 0.001), and prolonged intensive care (median 7 vs 5 days) and hospital length of stay (22 vs 11 days, p = 0.001). Septic shock (37 vs. 15%, p = 0.001) and mortality (28.8 vs. 15.0%, p = 0.005) were also significantly higher in Group 2 patients. Using Receiver operating curve, cutoff LRINEC point for mortality was 8.5 with area under the curve of 0.64. Pearson correlation analysis showed a significant correlation between LRINEC and SOFA scorings (r = 0.51, p < 0.002). Early diagnosis, simplified risk stratification and on-time management are vital to achieve better outcomes in patients with NF. Beside its diagnostic role, LRINEC scoring could predict worse hospital outcomes in patients with NF and simply identify the high-risk patients. However, further prospective studies are needed to support this finding.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 16%
Other 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 11 10%
Student > Master 11 10%
Researcher 9 8%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 37 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 40 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 June 2023.
All research outputs
#6,034,634
of 23,917,076 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#511
of 1,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,056
of 310,861 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#14
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,917,076 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,861 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.