Evidence Hub

Mortality, functional outcome and health-related quality of life in patients with necrotizing skin- and soft tissue infections in the ICU: Protocol of a multinational prospective cohort study (SKIN-ICU)

T. Urbina, M. Madsen, Camille Hua, Christian Eckmann, M. Elhadi, M. Gurjar, G. De Pascale, F. Zand et al.

Infectious Diseases Now, 2025

1,033 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTI) are rare and life-threatening bacterial infections characterized by necrosis of subcutaneous tissue, fascia, or muscle. Few prospective studies have been conducted. The primary objective is to assess the 90-day mortality rate and to identify prognostic factors in patients with NSTI in an international setting. Secondary objectives are i) to characterize the clinical and microbiological presentation and management; ii) to assess the risk of limb amputation and associated factors; and iii) to assess functional and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes and associated factors.

METHODS

We are conducting a multinational, prospective, non-interventional cohort study. We plan to enroll 1,033 consecutive patients admitted to 85 hospitals with surgically proven NSTI between November 2021 and December 2024 in 17 countries over three continents. Data will be collected prospectively on a secure web-based server. The primary outcome measure will be the day-90 mortality. Secondary outcomes include need for limb amputation, the activity of daily living scale and health-related quality of life at day-90 (EQ-5D-5L questionnaire). Baseline characteristics associated with outcomes will be identified by multivariable analyses. Exploratory analyses will be conducted to assess the impact of therapeutic interventions on day-90 mortality and secondary outcomes. The study protocol has been approved by an ethics committee in each…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 1,033 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free