An international RAND/UCLA expert panel to determine the optimal diagnosis and management of burn inhalation injury
Authors' conclusion
Burns experts mostly agreed on appropriate and inappropriate diagnostic and management criteria of BII as in published guidance. Uncertainty exists as to the optimal diagnosis and management of differing grades of severity of BII.
Study context
- Population
- Diagnosis and management of burn inhalation injury (BII)
- Participants
- 15 experts
- Outcome
- Appropriateness rating of statements (median rating and disagreement index) classified as appropriate, uncertain or inappropriate
Methodological detailsRAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, international expert panel, multidisciplinary
- RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method
- International expert panel
- Multidisciplinary
Recommendations
As reported in the abstract
Classification of 140 statements
Rated appropriate
74
Rated uncertain
40
Rated inappropriate
26
Further findings
Expert disagreement (disagreement index (DI) ≥ 1), statements classified uncertain
- Statements with disagreement
- six
- Flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy to guide fluid requirements (DI)
- 1.52
- Intubation with ETT internal diameter < 8.0 mm (DI)
- 1.19
- Airway pressure release ventilation (DI)
- 1.19
- Nebulised 5000IU heparin for mild BII (DI)
- 1.52
- N-acetylcysteine for mild BII (DI)
- 1.70
- Salbutamol for mild BII (DI)
- 1.36
Original publication
An international RAND/UCLA expert panel to determine the optimal diagnosis and management of burn inhalation injury. Crit Care. Published 27 November 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →