# Prognostic Scoring Systems for Burns: A Comparative Analysis of Their Predictive Accuracies for Mortality in Burn Patients

**Authors:** Susanne Rein, Jule Schmiechen, Jochen Gille, Thomas Kremer

PMC · DOI: 10.3390/ebj7010018 · European Burn Journal · 2026-03-19

## TL;DR

This study compares different scoring systems to predict mortality in burn patients and finds that BABSI and ABSI are the most accurate.

## Contribution

The study provides a comparative analysis of burn mortality prediction tools, identifying BABSI and ABSI as the most effective.

## Key findings

- BABSI and ABSI showed excellent predictive accuracy for mortality (AUC = 0.963 and 0.952, respectively).
- ASA had good discrimination but poor calibration for mortality prediction.
- CCI and mFI-5 had fair predictive accuracy compared to BABSI and ABSI.

## Abstract

Introduction: Various scoring systems are applied to burn patients to assess the perioperative and mortality risks as well as comorbidities. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the predictive accuracies for mortality of different scoring systems: the Abbreviated Burn Severity Index (ABSI), Bogenhausen ABSI (BABSI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and modified Frailty Index-5 (mFI-5). Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 644 burn patients treated at one burn center between September 2018 and May 2022. Results: Median scores were 5 (range: 1–16), 5 (range: 2–17.5), 2 (range: 1–5), 0 (range: 0–14) and 0 (range: 0–5) for the ABSI, BABSI, ASA, CCI and mFI-5, respectively. Significantly different median score results were observed between survivors and non-survivors: ABSI: 5 vs. 10; BABSI: 5 vs. 10.5; ASA: 2 vs. 4; CCI: 0 vs. 5; and mFI-5: 0 vs. 2 (p < 0.001 for all scores). Predictive accuracies were excellent for the BABSI (AUC = 0.963), ABSI (AUC = 0.952), and ASA (AUC = 0.916), whereas fair predictive accuracies were found for the CCI (AUC = 0.851) and mFI-5 (AUC = 0.760). Good calibration was observed for the BABSI, ABSI, CCI, and mFI-5, whereas calibration was poor for the ASA. Conclusion: All five scores significantly differentiate between survivors and non-survivors. However, the strongest discriminatory power and best calibration for mortality prediction were observed for the BABSI and ABSI scores. Therefore, the application of both scores is recommended in daily routine.

## Linked entities

- **Diseases:** burns (MONDO:0043519)

## Full-text entities

- **Diseases:** systemic diseases (MESH:D034721), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (MESH:D029424), Frailty (MESH:D000073496), diabetes mellitus (MESH:D003920), Burns (MESH:D002056), congestive heart failure (MESH:D006333), breast cancer (MESH:D001943), IHT (MESH:D015208), drug abuses (MESH:D019966), cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal, gastro-intestinal, and endocrinological diseases (MESH:D007410), CCI (MESH:C566784), arterial hypertension (MESH:D000081029), death (MESH:D003643), functions (MESH:D003291), pneumonia (MESH:D011014), spinal tumor (MESH:D009369), HIV infection (MESH:D015658), injury to (MESH:D014947), brain-dead (MESH:D001926)
- **Chemicals:** nicotine (MESH:D009538), alcohol (MESH:D000438), ASA (-)
- **Species:** Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606]

## Full text

_Full body text omitted from this summary view._ Fetch the complete paper as Markdown: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC13024829/full.md

## Figures

3 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC13024829/full.md

## References

42 references — full list in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC13024829/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC13024829