Extension usage examples:
Here's how our browser extension sees the article:
Mottling score and skin temperature in septic shock: Relation and impact on prognosis in ICU - PubMed
Source: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Article summary:
1. A prospective and observational study was conducted in a teaching hospital in France to compare mottling score and skin temperature in septic shock with infrared thermography in ICU and the correlation to survival.
2. 46 patients were included, with a median age of 69, SOFA score 11, mean SAPS II of 57±20, and 28-day mortality rate of 30%.
3. Skin temperature measured with infrared thermography technology around the knee is lower when mottling sign is present and sign microcirculation alterations; however, this method failed to predict mortality in ICU patients.
Article analysis:
The article provides an overview of a prospective and observational study conducted in a teaching hospital in France to compare mottling score and skin temperature in septic shock with infrared thermography in ICU and the correlation to survival. The study included 46 patients with a median age of 69, SOFA score 11, mean SAPS II of 57±20, and 28-day mortality rate of 30%. The results showed that skin temperature measured with infrared thermography technology around the knee is lower when mottling sign is present and sign microcirculation alterations; however, this method failed to predict mortality in ICU patients.
The trustworthiness and reliability of the article can be questioned due to several potential biases. Firstly, there is no mention of any control group or comparison group which could have been used for comparison purposes. Secondly, there is no discussion on potential confounding factors such as age or gender which could have impacted the results. Thirdly, there is no mention of any ethical considerations such as informed consent or patient privacy which should have been taken into account during the study. Finally, there is no discussion on potential limitations such as sample size or generalizability which could have affected the results.
In conclusion, while the article provides an overview of a prospective observational study conducted on septic shock patients in an ICU setting, it lacks sufficient evidence for its claims due to potential biases mentioned above. Therefore it cannot be considered reliable or trustworthy without further evidence or research being conducted on the topic.