Burn epidemiology, outcomes, and burn-center systems of care

Overview

Burn injury sits at the intersection of trauma epidemiology and a small, highly specialized care delivery system. In the United States, formal burn beds have remained essentially stable at roughly 1,700 to 1,800 across the past three decades despite consolidation of facilities ^[18]. Most acute burn care is concentrated at a limited number of self-reported burn centers, with approximately 40% (51 of 128 in 2008) holding American Burn Association (ABA) verification; large-database analyses show that the majority of significantly burned patients are actually treated outside those verified centers [11, 10].

Outcome data are dominated by the ABA National Burn Repository (NBR) and its successor, the Burn Care Quality Platform (BCQP), which together have captured hundreds of thousands of admissions and now anchor risk-adjusted mortality benchmarking across approximately 100 participating centers [12, 27, 28]. Across this evidence base, three patient-level variables, age, percent total body surface area (TBSA) burned, and inhalation injury, dominate mortality prediction and underwrite the Baux score and related severity indices [4, 21, 23]. The clinical reality this topic captures is that burn outcomes depend not only on what is on the patient but where that patient is treated, who refers them, and how the surrounding system is organized.

Globally, the asymmetry is severe: more than 95% of burns occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where access to basic health care is limited ^[20]. Worldwide trend data show declines in incidence, severity, length of stay, and mortality, but the underlying systematic review explicitly notes the absence of LMIC studies in the synthesis ^[17]. The epidemiology, the outcomes, and the burn-center system are therefore inseparable; this page treats them together.

Epidemiology

United States burden and registry infrastructure

Population-level burn epidemiology in the US is captured primarily through ABA registries. The original National Burn Repository grew to include more than 180,000 admissions ^[12], with later analyses drawing on 95,579 acute burn admissions to 80 ABA tertiary centers from 2000 through 2009 to characterize national patterns ^[13]. McGwin et al. combined 54,219 NBR cases with 14,442 National Trauma Data Bank cases (n = 68,661 total) to derive a multivariable mortality model whose performance variables were age, percent TBSA, inhalation injury, coexisting trauma, and pneumonia (AUC 0.94 in derivation, 0.87 in validation) ^[2].

The current operational registry is the Burn Care Quality Platform (BCQP), which has consolidated NBR and the Burn Quality Improvement Program into a single dataset; as of 2021 BCQP included 103 participating centers and had captured data from 375,000 total patients, with about 12,000 entered under the current data dictionary ^[27]. The BCQP dataset (130,729 subjects across 103 centers, July 2015 to June 2020) has been used to derive risk-adjusted mortality models, with a CatBoost machine-learning approach reaching test AUC 0.980 versus 0.951 for logistic regression ^[28].

Mechanism and demographics

Brandt et al. characterized electrical injuries as uncommon, comprising 10% of one regional burn center's admissions across a nine-year period, with 81% of electrical-burn admissions in that series classified as occupational ^[16]. Female sex carries a roughly 50% increased risk of death in adult burn cohorts (unadjusted OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.3-1.6), attenuating to a roughly 30% increased risk (adjusted OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.2-1.5) after covariate adjustment for age, race, TBSA, and inhalation injury ^[29]. Pediatric and elderly cohorts have distinct mortality structure (see Special Considerations).

Global and LMIC burden

The international epidemiology is dominated by LMICs. Sasor et al. state that more than 95% of burns occur in low- and middle-income countries, where access to basic health care is limited ^[20]. The most recent worldwide systematic review (Smolle et al. 2017) reported a downward trend in burn incidence, burn severity, length of stay, and mortality, most pronounced in very highly developed countries; the review explicitly states "no studies could be obtained from low and middle income countries," constraining inference about LMIC trends ^[17]. The asymmetry between where burns occur and where outcome data are generated remains the central evidence gap in global burn epidemiology.

Severity Scoring and Mortality Predictors

Mortality predictors

The dominant predictors of burn mortality have converged across decades of multivariate analyses. Colohan et al.'s systematic review of burn-prognosis literature found that increasing percent TBSA, inhalation injury, and increasing age were the strongest predictors of mortality identified by studies using multivariate methods ^[4]. Dempsey et al.'s 2025 multicenter analysis found age independently associated with three-month mortality (OR 1.06, CI 1.05-1.08) after adjustment for TBSA, APACHE II, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, with age 80+ carrying particularly elevated mortality ^[31]. McGwin et al.'s NBR+NTDB-derived model adds coexisting trauma and pneumonia to the age-TBSA-inhalation triad and achieves AUC 0.87 in independent validation ^[2]. In burns complicated by invasive fungal infection, mortality is multiplied roughly ten-fold relative to propensity-matched controls (1-year mortality 18.5% vs. 1.9%; RR 9.8, CI 7.2-13.2), with TBSA-stratified mortality among the fungal-infection cohort of 21.6% for less than 10% TBSA, 29.0% for 10%-49% TBSA, and 33.1% for greater than 50% TBSA (Frederick et al. 2025) ^[32].

Severity scores

Clinical prognostic scoring distills these predictors into usable indices. The Baux score (age + percent TBSA) remains widely used; in a 2001 elderly-cohort analysis, the Baux score was predictive of outcome in 87.0% of patients and was characterized as the superior predictor of outcome in that elderly population ^[21]. Hussain et al.'s 2013 systematic review catalogs the family of available indices, including the Abbreviated Burn Severity Index (ABSI), Modified Baux Score, Total Burn Surface Index, and a range of regression-based prediction models (Coste, Ryan, McGwin, Galeiras, BOBI) ^[23].

The lethal area 50% (LA50), the burn size lethal to 50% of patients, is the canonical population-level prognostic anchor. In Saffle et al.'s 1995 ABA Patient Registry analysis, the LA50 for young adults was 81% TBSA ^[1]. Jackson et al.'s 2014 Birmingham Burn Centre analysis demonstrated improvement in both predicted mortality and LA50 over the most recent decade, consistent with secular improvement in outcomes ^[14].

TBSA estimation

Severity scoring is only as good as the TBSA input. Pham et al.'s 2019 systematic review identified pervasive TBSA miscalculations across 26 studies, ranging from 5% to 339% regardless of provider level, with burns less than 20% TBSA disproportionately overestimated; that misestimation drove up to 77% of inappropriate transfers to burn centers ^[19]. The implication is that prognostic scores and triage decisions both inherit error from the upstream TBSA estimate.

Burn-Center Verification and Geographic Access

The ABA verification system

The American Burn Association instituted a burn center verification process to ensure optimal care for patients with burn injury ^[9]. The current ABA verification framework lists 135 criteria; only 50% to 60% of US burn centers are verified ^[33]. Palmieri et al.'s 2008 comparative analysis (2,867 burn-center admissions, 1,645 nonverified and 1,222 verified) found verified centers admitted twice as many burns of 80% or greater TBSA than nonverified centers, admitted more face burns (18% vs. 14%), and had more patients on mechanical ventilation, while overall mortality was comparable (4% verified vs. 3% nonverified) ^[9]. The authors concluded that additional studies of the impact of verification on burn care were needed.

Geographic access

Klein et al.'s 2009 JAMA analysis remains the canonical geographic-access study. In 2008 there were 128 self-reported burn centers in the United States including 51 ABA-verified centers ^[11]. An estimated 25.1% and 46.3% of the US population lived within one and two hours by ground transport, respectively, of a verified burn center; by air, 53.9% and 79.0% of the population lived within one and two hours of a verified center ^[11]. Nearly 80% of the US population lived within two hours by ground or rotary air transport of a verified center, but with significant regional variation, greatest access in the Northeast and lowest in the South ^[11]. Carmichael et al.'s 2019 analysis updated the geographic-access picture, identifying 113 centers (59 verified, 54 nonverified) and finding that 24.7% of the US population lives in low-access areas, with marked regional disparity (37.3% in the Southern Region versus 10.5% in the Northeastern Region); eight nonverified centers would most impact access in low-access areas if newly verified ^[25].

Where patients actually go

Zonies et al.'s 2010 19-state, 1,376-hospital analysis found that 22% of 29,971 burn patients were treated at verified centers, 26% at nonverified centers, and 52% at other facilities; more than two-thirds of significantly burned patients were treated at nonverified burn centers, and many patients meeting ABA criteria for transfer to a burn center were being treated at nonburn-center facilities ^[10]. Klein et al. (2008) further showed that injury severity and payer status were independent predictors of treatment at the single verified burn center in Washington state, with uninsured status associated with higher relative risk (RR 1.46, CI 1.4-1.5) of being treated at the verified center ^[5].

State-level requirements

State regulation of burn center status is highly variable. Lu et al. found that in 2020 only 13 states set requirements for burn centers; three states explicitly required ABA verification, four used modified ABA criteria, and six used alternate criteria, with 90 confirmed burn centers identified, 85 with emergency departments ^[24].

Volume-outcome relationship

The volume-outcome relationship for burn care does not appear linear. Light et al.'s 2009 multicenter analysis concluded that mortality does not linearly improve with burn-center volume and plateaus with increasing burn-center size, with patient characteristics (age, burn size, mechanism, inhalation injury, race, sex) determining mortality even after accounting for center volume ^[6]. Stanton et al.'s 2025 TQIP analysis of 72,474 burn patients (47% treated at Level 1 trauma centers) found Level 1 centers had higher injury severity and complication rates but significantly lower adjusted mortality (OR 0.46, CI 0.25-0.83); in burns greater than 20% TBSA, Level 1 centers maintained lower mortality (adjusted OR 0.83, CI 0.79-0.88) ^[30].

Regionalization, Triage, and Transfer

The ABA criteria for burn-center transfer define the operational referral interface. Harrington et al.'s 2014 review characterized the ABA regionalization experiment as "reasonably successful in its first 25 years," with the recommendation that the ABA and the regions consider next steps ^[15]. Saffle et al.'s 2009 multicenter analysis observed that inexperience in burn-wound assessment by referring physicians often results in overtriage or undertriage, and that telemedicine-supported assessment can reduce both error directions, improve resource utilization, and extend burn-center expertise to rural communities at low cost ^[7].

Transfer timing also matters; Bodily et al. found that patients meeting ABA criteria for transfer were not adversely affected by short delays in transfer to definitive burn care ^[8]. The downstream cost of TBSA misestimation at the referring hospital, however, is substantial: up to 77% of transfers to burn centers may be inappropriate when TBSA is mis-estimated, with attendant cost and capacity consequences ^[19].

The state of Maine experience (Blaisdell et al. 2012) is illustrative: prevention programs, legislation, and a regionalized system of burn care have likely contributed to bringing Maine's morbidity and mortality below the national average ^[22]. Regionalization, prevention, and verified care are coupled, not separable, interventions.

Outcomes Over Time

Long-term trend analyses of burn outcomes consistently show improvement. Jackson et al.'s 2014 Birmingham Burn Centre analysis (4,577 patients, mean TBSA 7.2%, mean age 22) demonstrated statistically significant improvement in mortality across the most recent decade of care ^[14]. Smolle et al.'s 2017 systematic review reported a worldwide downward trend in burn incidence, burn severity, length of stay, and mortality, most pronounced in very highly developed countries, with the caveat that no LMIC studies were available ^[17]. Busche et al.'s 2019 meta-analysis attributed survival improvements to multiple converging factors including isolation of burn patients, speed of wound closure, ABA verification, and standard operating procedures ^[3].

Length of stay scales predictably with age and inhalation injury: Taylor et al. (2017) reported that for each decade increase in age, LOS increased by 0.74 days per TBSA percent burn; inhalation injury added 1.70 days ^[36]. Brigham et al.'s 2008 facility-level analysis found that of 175 US hospitals reporting specialized burn beds since 1947, 125 were active as of early 2007, with average burn beds per facility rising from 11.2 to 14.4 across the era; despite the closure of 50 facilities, total US burn beds remained essentially stable at 1,700-1,800 across 30 years ^[18].

Length of Stay, Readmission, and Cost

Resource outcomes are a defining feature of burn care. Saffle et al.'s 1995 ABA Patient Registry analysis reported a mean length of stay of 13.5 days and mean total charges of $39,533, with resource utilization related to clinical comorbidity factors and length of stay ^[1]. Sheckter et al.'s analysis of 3,557 major burn patients (>second-degree depth and 20%-50% TBSA undergoing operative treatment) drew from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, and AHRQ to characterize the operative burn population ^[34]. Holmes et al. noted in 2008 that burn-care centers were compromised by problems obtaining reimbursement for the care of uninsured and publicly insured out-of-state burn patients ^[26], a payer-mix challenge that the verification literature has not resolved.

Discharge disposition is patterned. Lakhlani et al.'s 2025 California analysis (27,496 encounters, 2009-2019) found that 0.8% were discharged to inpatient rehabilitation, with notable predictors including Medicare as payor (OR 0.30-0.88) compared to commercial insurance, trauma center status (OR 1.45-3.43), ABA verification status (OR 1.16-2.74), and safety net facility status (OR 1.09-1.97); verified and safety-net centers had more patients discharged to inpatient rehabilitation after adjustment for burn severity and demographics ^[35]. Greene et al. (2015) similarly found that the relative risk of discharge to inpatient rehabilitation varied by as much as six-fold across states, with higher TBSA, insurance coverage, higher age, and burn-center hospitalization all increasing rehabilitation discharge likelihood ^[37].

Telemedicine and Systems of Care

Telemedicine is a recurring lever for extending burn-center expertise. Pham et al. argued that a systematic approach with telemedicine-facilitated computer-based burn assessments is required to address the TBSA-misestimation problem driving inappropriate transfers ^[19]. The 2009 Saffle analysis similarly identified telemedicine as a low-cost mechanism to enhance and extend burn-center expertise to rural communities ^[7].

Special Considerations

Pediatric burns

Pediatric burn mortality structure differs from adult cohorts. Jeschke et al.'s 2015 multicenter analysis identified an approximate 60% TBSA cutoff in children for mortality, sepsis, infection, and multiple-organ failure ^[38]. Thombs et al.'s 2008 NBR analysis of 15,802 pediatric admissions found that children with suspected abuse-related burn injuries had markedly elevated mortality (OR 4.67, CI 2.60-8.39) and required longer intensive-care and total hospital stays compared with accidentally injured children matched on demographic and injury characteristics ^[39].

Geriatric burns

Geriatric burn cohorts carry disproportionately high mortality. Dempsey et al. (2025) found age 80+ independently associated with three-month mortality across 5-year age strata after adjustment for TBSA, APACHE II, and Charlson Comorbidity Index ^[31]. Wibbenmeyer et al.'s elderly cohort demonstrated that the Baux score predicted outcome in 87.0% of patients, with the score's superior predictive ability for the elderly population highlighted ^[21]. Oehlers et al. (2024) reported on a Geriatric Burn Bundle implemented in 2019 at a regional burn center to standardize care for older adults ^[40].

Disparities

Klein et al.'s 2008 analysis found uninsured status independently associated with treatment at the verified burn center, with payer status and injury severity acting as independent predictors of which patients reached the single verified center in Washington ^[5]. Lakhlani et al.'s 2025 California analysis found payer-related differences in inpatient-rehabilitation discharge, with Medicare patients less likely to be discharged to rehabilitation than commercially insured patients after adjustment ^[35]. The intersection of insurance, geography, and verified-center access remains a defining structural disparity in US burn care.

Controversies and Evidence Gaps

The most important unresolved questions in burn epidemiology and systems of care concentrate around four issues.

First, the independent effect of ABA verification on mortality remains contested. Palmieri et al.'s comparative analysis showed verified and nonverified centers had comparable mortality despite the former handling more severe injuries ^[9]; Stanton et al. (2025) found Level 1 trauma-center designation associated with significantly lower adjusted mortality ^[30]; Busche et al.'s 2019 meta-analysis credited ABA verification along with other quality improvements for survival gains ^[3]. The literature has not cleanly separated verification effect from case-mix and volume effects.

Second, the volume-outcome relationship is not linear, and the adult and pediatric literatures diverge. Light et al. concluded that mortality plateaus with increasing center size ^[6], a finding with significant implications for whether building new centers or strengthening existing ones is the higher-yield intervention. Busche et al.'s 2019 meta-analysis sharpened this picture: in adults, not a single study in the existing literature showed mortality reduction with higher patient load, while two pediatric studies did show further mortality decrease with higher pediatric-burn-center volume ^[3]. Zeinalipour et al.'s 2024 LMIC-context analysis concluded that distance to a referral burn center did not independently affect mortality, recommending investment in existing centers over new construction ^[41].

Third, the global asymmetry between where burns occur (>95% in LMICs) and where outcome data are generated (predominantly high-income centers, with Smolle et al.'s systematic review reporting no LMIC studies in its synthesis) constrains all global trend inference [20, 17].

Fourth, TBSA misestimation by referring providers (5%-339% error range, driving up to 77% of inappropriate transfers) suggests that the upstream assessment step, not the downstream center capacity, is the rate-limiting variable for triage accuracy ^[19].

References

[1] Saffle et al. "Recent outcomes in the treatment of burn injury in the United States: a report from the American Burn Association Patient Registry." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 1995. PMID: 7673300. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7673300/

[2] McGwin et al. "Improving the ability to predict mortality among burn patients." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2008. PMID: 17869427. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17869427/

[3] Busche et al. "Does Increased Patient Load Improve Mortality in Burns?: Identifying Benchmark Parameters Defining Quality of Burn Care." Annals of plastic surgery 2019. PMID: 30855365. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30855365/

[4] Colohan et al. "Predicting prognosis in thermal burns with associated inhalational injury: a systematic review of prognostic factors in adult burn victims." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2010. PMID: 20523229. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20523229/

[5] Klein et al. "Influence of injury characteristics and payer status on burn treatment location in Washington state." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2008. PMID: 18388579. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18388579/

[6] Light et al. "The effect of burn center and burn center volume on the mortality of burned adults--an analysis of the data in the National Burn Repository." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2009. PMID: 19692917. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19692917/

[7] Saffle et al. "Telemedicine evaluation of acute burns is accurate and cost-effective." The Journal of trauma 2009. PMID: 19667890. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19667890/

[8] Bodily et al. "The Effect of Transfer on Outcomes in Burns." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2021. PMID: 34086949. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34086949/

[9] Palmieri et al. "Analysis of admissions and outcomes in verified and nonverified burn centers." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2008. PMID: 18182924. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18182924/

[10] Zonies et al. "Verified centers, nonverified centers, or other facilities: a national analysis of burn patient treatment location." Journal of the American College of Surgeons 2010. PMID: 20193892. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20193892/

[11] Klein et al. "Geographic access to burn center hospitals." JAMA 2009. PMID: 19861669. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19861669/

[12] Guagliardo et al. "Admissions across state lines: harnessing the insight of the National Burn Repository for the healthcare accessibility, fiscal, and legislative concerns facing the American Burn Association." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2008. PMID: 18182914. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18182914/

[13] Taylor et al. "A competing risk analysis for hospital length of stay in patients with burns." JAMA surgery 2015. PMID: 25761045. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25761045/

[14] Jackson et al. "Revised estimates of mortality from the Birmingham Burn Centre: a continuing analysis over 65 years." Annals of surgery 2014. PMID: 23598383. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23598383/

[15] Harrington et al. "An update on the regional organizations of the american burn association." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2014. PMID: 23799483. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23799483/

[16] Brandt et al. "Burn centers should be involved in prevention of occupational electrical injuries." The Journal of burn care & rehabilitation 2002. PMID: 11882803. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11882803/

[17] Smolle et al. "Recent trends in burn epidemiology worldwide: A systematic review." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2017. PMID: 27600982. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27600982/

[18] Brigham et al. "The evolution of burn care facilities in the United States." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2008. PMID: 18182929. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18182929/

[19] Pham et al. "Changing the Way We Think About Burn Size Estimation." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2019. PMID: 30247559. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30247559/

[20] Sasor et al. "Upper Extremity Burns in the Developing World: A Neglected Epidemic." Hand clinics 2019. PMID: 31585607. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31585607/

[21] Wibbenmeyer et al. "Predicting survival in an elderly burn patient population." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2001. PMID: 11525852. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11525852/

[22] Blaisdell et al. "A half-century of burn epidemiology and burn care in a rural state." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2012. PMID: 22002206. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22002206/

[23] Hussain et al. "Predicting survival in thermal injury: a systematic review of methodology of composite prediction models." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2013. PMID: 23384617. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23384617/

[24] Lu et al. "Development of a Unified National Database of Burn Centers With Colocated Emergency Departments." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2022. PMID: 34893840. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34893840/

[25] Carmichael et al. "Regional disparities in access to verified burn center care in the United States." The journal of trauma and acute care surgery 2019. PMID: 30865160. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30865160/

[26] Holmes et al. "Critical issues in burn care." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2008. PMID: 18997561. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18997561/

[27] Galicia et al. "American Burn Association (ABA) Burn Care Quality Platform (BCQP) and Large Data Set Analysis Considerations: A Practical Guide to Investigating Clinical Questions in Burns via Large Data Sets." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2024. PMID: 37339870. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37339870/

[28] Mandell et al. "Setting the Standard: Using the ABA Burn Registry to Benchmark Risk Adjusted Mortality." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2023. PMID: 36219064. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36219064/

[29] Kerby et al. "Sex differences in mortality after burn injury: results of analysis of the National Burn Repository of the American Burn Association." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2006. PMID: 16819347. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16819347/

[30] Stanton et al. "Does trauma center designation impact management, complications, and outcomes in burn patients? A National Trauma Data Bank analysis." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2025. PMID: 40592133. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40592133/

[31] Dempsey et al. "Redefining the concept of the elderly burn patient: Analysis of a multicentre international dataset." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2025. PMID: 40288004. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40288004/

[32] Frederick et al. "Invasive Fungal Infection Increases Mortality Risk After Burn Injury." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2025. PMID: 40347144. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40347144/

[33] Ivanko et al. "Characteristics of Verified and Designated Burn Centers." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2025. PMID: 40138699. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40138699/

[34] Sheckter et al. "The impact of skin allograft on inpatient outcomes in the treatment of major burns 20-50% total body surface area - A propensity score matched analysis using the nationwide inpatient sample." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2019. PMID: 30527451. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30527451/

[35] Lakhlani et al. "Burn Center Verification and Safety Net Status: Are There Differences in Discharge to Inpatient Rehabilitation?." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2025. PMID: 38874931. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38874931/

[36] Taylor et al. "Not all patients meet the 1day per percent burn rule: A simple method for predicting hospital length of stay in patients with burn." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2017. PMID: 28041754. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28041754/

[37] Greene et al. "Variation in Inpatient Rehabilitation Utilization After Hospitalization for Burn Injury in the United States." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2015. PMID: 25423440. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25423440/

[38] Jeschke et al. "Morbidity and survival probability in burn patients in modern burn care." Critical care medicine 2015. PMID: 25559438. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25559438/

[39] Thombs et al. "Patient and injury characteristics, mortality risk, and length of stay related to child abuse by burning: evidence from a national sample of 15,802 pediatric admissions." Annals of surgery 2008. PMID: 18376198. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18376198/

[40] Oehlers et al. "Implementation of a geriatric care bundle for older adults with acute burns." Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries 2024. PMID: 38472006. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38472006/

[41] Zeinalipour et al. "Does Referral Distance Deteriorates the Burn Patients Outcome? Results From an Academic Tertiary Hospital in a Developing Country." Journal of burn care & research : official publication of the American Burn Association 2024. PMID: 37565463. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37565463/