Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 May 20;20(5):e0324481. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324481

Global, regional and national burden of injuries caused by fire, heat, and hot substances from 1990 to 2021

Shi Huang 1,☯,*, Hui-Zhen Lin 2,, Xin Wei 1,
Editor: David G Greenhalgh3
PMCID: PMC12091820  PMID: 40392861

Abstract

Background

Burn injuries, which are caused by fire, heat, and hot substances, are considered a chronic condition due to their long-term effects on the health of affected individuals. Moreover, burn injuries constitute a significant public health issue that cannot be overlooked within the global healthcare system.

Materials and methods

This study comprehensively analyzed the burden of burn injuries, focusing on variations by Socio-Demographic Index (SDI) levels and Global Burden of Disease (GBD) regions, sex-based disparities, Frontier analysis, and future trend forecasting using the Bayesian Age-Period-Cohort (BAPC) model.

Results

Compared to 1990, the global burden of burn injuries decreased in most regions worldwide in 2021. The majority of regions showed a negative Estimated Annual Percentage Change (EAPC), indicating a continuous decline in Age-Standardized Rate (ASR) annually. And the ASR decreased with the increasing SDI. Moreover, the forecasted trend from 2021 to 2030, indicates a continued decline with a well-fitted projection model.

Conclusions

Despite the observed and projected decline in global ASR of burn, the burden of burn remains a significant concern that should not be underestimated.

Background

In the realm of global public health, burn injuries constitute a significant and distinct segment [1]. Burn injuries are inherently acute conditions; however, in certain circumstances, the long-term sequelae of burn injuries may exhibit characteristics akin to those of chronic diseases [2]. Burn injuries not only damage skin tissues but also can lead to a range of complications [3]. At the same time, severe burn injuries have long-lasting effects on both the physical and psychological health of patients, thereby imposing a substantial disease burden [4]. Therefore, prompt and comprehensive management is essential for burn patients to mitigate the disease burden and improve outcomes [5]. However, owing to disparities in medical standards worldwide, not all burn patients have access to appropriate medical services. Consequently, epidemiological studies on burn injuries worldwide are of particular importance.

A recent epidemiological study indicate that in 2019, the global economic burden attributable to burn amounted to USD 11.2 billion, accounting for 0.09% of the global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [6]. Meanwhile, a single-center epidemiological study in Southwest China reported a median medical costs of USD 29,152.54 for burn injuries patients in the region; another study conducted in the Netherlands reported an average total costs of EUR 26,540 per patient for burn injuries in that area [7,8]. Therefore, the economic burden imposed by burn injuries is substantial. Additionally, scholars utilized the Electronic Death Registry System (EDRS) to analyze the disease burden caused by burn injuries in southern Iran. The study results indicated a declining trend in crude and standardized mortality rates among burn injury patients in the region during the study period, with higher mortality rates observed in the 15–29 age group [9]. Overall, current epidemiological studies of burn injuries predominantly focus on national, provincial, multi-center, or single-center levels, with a notable deficiency in research on global burden of burn injuries.

Therefore, this study estimates the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) of burn using the GBD 2021 (https://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-2021). Despite previous reports on the GBD of burn injuries from 1990 to 2017, there remains a lack of comprehensive analysis based on the Socio-Demographic Index (SDI), sexes, and age groups for the current GBD of burn injuries. Additionally, future trends in GBD of burn injuries remain to be predicted [1]. Therefore, this study aims to examine the global burden of burn injuries caused by fire, heat, and hot substances, utilizing data from the GBD 2021 database. Specifically, the analysis focuses on the period from 1990 to 2021, while forecasting the burden for the period from 2021 to 2030. By providing a comprehensive epidemiological profile of burn injuries, this research seeks to offer health policymakers worldwide a robust evidence base to inform strategies aimed at reducing and preventing the burden of burn injuries.

Materials and methods

Data source

In the GBD 2021 study, the data from 56,640 data sources demonstrate extensiveness and inclusivity, achieved through the inclusion of 204 countries and territories, as well as 811 subnational locations. The data sources encompass vital registration, verbal autopsies, censuses, disease surveillance systems, and cancer registries, and other relevant sources. The GBD 2021 study provides annual estimates of Incidence, Prevalence, Death, Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs), Years of Life Lost (YLLs), and Years Lived with Disability (YLDs) from 1990 to 2021, stratified by age, sex, and region. This stratification ensures that that the results comprehensively reflect the health status of different regions and populations worldwide. Furthermore, through the analysis of the Socio-Demographic Index (SDI) and demographic data, the GBD 2021 has further enhanced the comprehensiveness and inclusivity of the data. This approach enables a deeper understanding of the relationship between development levels in different regions and health outcomes, thereby offering a comprehensive and in-depth perspective for global health research [10].

In this study, the data on burn injuries were sourced from the Global Health Data Exchange (GHDx) as part of the GBD 2021. The use of GBD 2021 data was approved by the Institutional Review Committee at the University of Washington and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). As the data are publicly accessible, there are no ethical concerns associated with this research [11].

GBD injury classification

The GBD classification system categorizes the causes of injuries and the nature of those injuries. The external cause categories, or “codes”, are used for events such as falls and road traffic accidents, as well as fire, heat, and hot substances. The injury nature codes classify injuries into 47 categories, quantifying various disabling outcomes for each injury cause according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), particularly the T20-T32 chapters of ICD-10 and the 900–999 codes of ICD-9. The latest GBD literature provides more information on the nature of injury groups. Within the GBD 2021 dataset, burn injuries are defined as a group of diseases characterized by injuries to the skin or other tissues caused by flames, hot liquids, hot gases, chemicals, or other sources of heat [1,12].

Data collection and processing

We describe the GBD of injuries caused by fire, heat, and hot substances between 1990 and 2021 by considering various metrics, including Number of Incidence, Prevalence, Death; DALYs, YLLs, and YLDs, as well as Age-Standardized Rate (ASR) and Estimated Annual Percentage Changes (EAPC) [13]. Incidence is defined as the number of new cases in a population over a specific time frame and reflects how often the disease occurs in the population. Prevalence refers to the number of existing cases of a specific disease in a specific population at a specific point in time or over a period of time and includes two forms: point prevalence and period prevalence. Death rate is defined as the number of deaths due to a specific cause within a certain period of time. DALYs represent the total healthy life years lost from the onset of illness to death, including both YLLs and YLDs.

ASR stands for the age-standardized rate, which makes the burden of burn injuries more comparable across different regions, sexes, and age groups by accounting for age distribution. EAPC can be used to assess the average annual growth rate of a certain indicator over a specific time period. In the calculation formula for EAPC mentioned in S1 File, if β is less than 0, then exp(β) is less than 1, indicating that the ASR shows an overall decreasing trend during 1990–2021. Conversely, if β is greater than 0, then exp(β) is greater than 1, indicating that the ASR shows an overall increasing trend during 1990–2021 (S1 File, Chapter 1).

In this study, we employed uncertainty interval (UI) and confidence interval (CI) to characterize the margins of error for Number, ASR, and EAPC. The UI for Number and ASR provides a quantification of the uncertainty surrounding these estimates. The calculation of UI is based on the variability of the statistical models and the inherent uncertainty of the data, reflecting the credibility and precision of the estimates, which are typically provided by the GBD database. Conversely, the CI for EAPC offers a quantification of the uncertainty associated with the EAPC estimates. The computation of CI is based on the standard error of the regression analysis and the t-distribution (or other distributions, contingent upon assumptions regarding sample size and distribution) to determine the confidence interval for the regression coefficient β, thereby facilitating the calculation of the EAPC confidence interval [14,15].

To obtain and analyze the Number, ASR and EAPC of Incidence, Death, Prevalence, DALYs, YLLs, YLDs for burn injuries, we utilized R programming packages, including “dplyr” and “ggplot2” for the analysis. Additionally, based on 22 GBD regions and 204 countries and territories, this study conducted a detailed comparative analysis of the burden caused by burn injuries across different SDI groups, countries and sexes.

Subsequently, Frontier analysis was conducted based on the burden of burn injuries from 1990 to 2021 across various countries. In this context, Frontier analysis is a methodology employed to assess the disparities between different countries or regions and the global optimum in health performance, which is denoted as the “Frontier”. The “Frontier” refers to the countries or regions that have achieved the lowest burden of burn injuries at a given SDI level, thereby exemplifying best practices in health performance. The objective of Frontier analysis is to identify and quantify the gaps between other countries or regions and these best-practice countries, thereby uncovering potential opportunities for health improvement. Within Frontier analysis, the “Effective Difference” (EF) is commonly calculated. It denotes the distance between a country or region and the Frontier, reflecting the discrepancy between the actual burn burden of the country or region and the lowest attainable burden. A larger EF indicates a greater untapped potential for health improvement within the country or region. [1519] (S1 File, Chapter 2).

Finally, the study utilized a Bayesian Age-Period-Cohort (BAPC) model to forecast the burden of burn injuries from 2021 to 2030 [20]. In the BAPC model, unknown parameters are treated as random variables with prior distributions, and observational data from samples are combined with prior knowledge to estimate the posterior distribution. Assuming that the effects between adjacent time periods are similar, we employed a second-order random walk prior based on the linear time trend assumption for period effects to adjust for over-dispersion [21,22]. We organized data on annual Prevalence rates, Death rates, and DALYs from 1990 to 2021 into 31 consecutive single-year periods and 17 consecutive age groups (0–9 years, 10–14 years, …, 80–84 years, > 85 years). Subsequently, corresponding population data were organized into 41 consecutive single-year periods from 1990 to 2030 [23] (S1 File, Chapter 3). All analyses in this study were conducted using R (version 4.2.3).

Results

Global and regional burden of burn injuries from 1990 to 2021

DALYs, YLLs, and YLDs from 1990 to 2021.

Compared to 1990, there was a decrease in number and ASR of DALYs, YLLs, and YLDs globally due to burn injuries in 2021. Globally, the EAPC for DALYs, YLLs, and YLDs were -2.26 ([95% CI] -2.36 to -2.15), -2.36 ([95% CI] -2.49 to -2.24), and -2.02 ([95% CI] -2.10 to -1.94), respectively. The most significant decline in ASR of DALYs was observed in East Asia with an EAPC of -4.65 ([95% CI] -4.78 to -4.52); for ASR of YLLs, Australasia showed the largest decline with an EAPC of -5.29 ([95% CI] -6.01 to -4.57); and for ASR of YLDs, Tropical Latin America exhibited the most notable decrease with an EAPC of -3.56 ([95% CI] -3.83 to -3.28). Notably, despite an upward trend in number of DALYs in regions like Australasia and Oceania, their negative EAPC values indicate a decreasing ASR of DALYs in 2021 compared to 1990. In the broader trend of declining disease burden, YLDs in Oceania showed an increase in both number and ASR, with an EAPC of 0.11 ([95% CI] 0.01 to 0.21), suggesting a rise in disease burden in this region from 1990 to 2021 (Tables 1). Additionally, Figs 1 reveals that the global burden of burn, as reflected in DALYs, YLLs, and YLDs, has shown a continuous decline from 1990 to 2021. Furthermore, the number and ASR are higher for males compared to females (Figs 1).

Table 1. Burden of injuries caused by fire, heat, and substances in Disability-Adjusted Life Years, Years of Life Lost and Years Lived with Disability between 1990 and 2021.
1990 Number 2021 Number 1990 2021 Estimated Annual Percent Change
(95% UI) (95% UI) Age-Standardized Rate Age-Standardized Rate (95% CI)
(95% UI) (95% UI)
DALYs
Global 11458000.8 8470611.5 211.5 108.6 -2.26
(9652567.6-12962184.7) (6900996.8-10126587.0) (179.4-240.7) (87.6-129.2) (-2.36--2.15)
Andean Latin America 117881.4 72353.7 304.7 109.8 -3.52
(98944.7-136963.9) (57030.3-92373.9) (253.4-357.4) (86.8-140.1) (-3.66--3.39)
Australasia 22832.5 23457.4 108.5 64.1 -1.88
(15596.4-33358.4) (13834.9-37290.8) (75.3-156.5) (38.5-100.1) (-2.10--1.66)
Caribbean 137122.3 106777.2 377.2 228.7 -1.49
(109530.5-164727.4) (83775.8-131981.7) (301.6-450.4) (178.1-282.1) (-1.66--1.31)
Central Asia 342418 170279.2 476.2 175.2 -3.79
(310525.4-378650.1) (143614.8-205370.5) (427.9-533.1) (147.6-211.4) (-4.10--3.48)
Central Europe 236967.1 125932.3 183.8 85.7 -2.69
(192378.6-290290.8) (95279.4-168748.9) (150.1-223.5) (65.3-113.9) (-2.80--2.58)
Central Latin America 571857 343758.5 349.8 133.1 -2.64
(449339.2-707118.2) (262601.3-446266.9) (273.3-432.3) (102.0-172.5) (-2.86--2.42)
Central Sub-Saharan Africa 290221.3 289505.2 444.9 245.2 -1.85
(223428.5-358491.2) (211035.3-547644.8) (352.8-539.4) (183.9-441.4) (-1.99--1.72)
East Asia 1539552.1 556614.9 134.7 33.8 -4.65
(1258711.4-1800055.6) (443425.2-701185.5) (109.9-157.2) (27.2-41.7) (-4.78--4.52)
Eastern Europe 692765.9 376935.6 299.4 147.2 -3.25
(608035-801016.5) (318820.5-457298) (265.0-343.0) (125.6-176.7) (-4.13--2.35)
Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa 1045740.7 965834.4 483.4 256.1 -2.05
(831580.8-1236161.7) (758274.4-1271632.1) (407.8-575.2) (207.1-329.2) (-2.08--2.01)
High-income Asia Pacific 234653.5 164526.1 129.1 62.4 -2.56
(170732.2-326391.4) (108297.8-249347.4) (96.3-176.1) (40.3-94.2) (-2.73--2.40)
High-income North America 431911.8 268143.6 152.6 60.9 -2.88
(347913.7-558836.7) (196122.1-377814.8) (125.8-192.5) (45.9-83.7) (-3.11--2.65)
North Africa and Middle East 1249670.8 662852.4 333.4 106.6 -3.91
(762888.1-1511094.4) (544968.7-797058.9) (206.4-398.3) (87.5-127.9) (-4.04--3.77)
Oceania 19782.6 37545 290.8 260.6 -0.37
(13482.3-27162.5) (25836.1-52946.9) (212.9-377.2) (190.3-354.2) (-0.51--0.24)
South Asia 2280325.2 2010713.1 201.2 108.1 -2.07
(1849246.9-2605560.3) (1595304.7-2287816.9) (165.5-228.4) (86.4-123.0) (-2.19--1.95)
Southeast Asia 557096.6 423811.5 118.7 60.4 -2.11
(451290.6-639945.3) (351689.6-510628.6) (98.1-136.1) (50.2-72.5) (-2.16--2.06)
Southern Latin America 131330.3 109724.8 269.9 149.5 -1.73
(100615.3-172711.5) (74274.3-160577) (206.0-355.9) (102.4-216.7) (-1.8909--1.56)
Southern Sub-Saharan Africa 228933.8 230538.2 443.3 290.4 -1.17
(192082.6-263163.1) (195875.8-268472.4) (377.2-511.6) (247.7-337.6) (-1.40--0.95)
Tropical Latin America 281448.6 168305.7 192.6 69.2 -3.72
(236435-328344.1) (130615.1-212814.1) (160.9-226.8) (54.0-87.1) (-3.91--3.52)
Western Europe 394466.8 272014.2 95.3 49.1 -2.2
(286477.3-548874.4) (175691.7-411877.6) (71.0-129.9) (32.1-73.8) (-2.26--2.13)
Western Sub-Saharan Africa 651022.7 1090988.3 275.3 213.3 -0.81
(476530.7-787691.8) (539397.7-1475115.4) (210.0-327.3) (115.2-284.8) (-1.04--0.57)
YLLs
Global 8220450.8 5573490.4 146.8 73.4 -2.36
(6696932.6-9152343.1) (4168061.5-6706244.0) (120.5-162.4) (54.0-89.2) (-2.49--2.24)
Andean Latin America 57856.2 22589 131.5 35 -4.69
(47267.2-65985.4) (18197.5-28855.7) (108.3-148.3) (28.2-44.7) (-5.03--4.36)
Australasia 6964.4 2688.6 35.7 8.4 -5.29
(6750.0-7207.7) (2563.9-2816.2) (34.5-37.0) (7.9-8.8) (-6.01--4.57)
Caribbean 73104.5 39443.8 190.8 91 -2.16
(53624.9-94278.3) (28329.9-52618.7) (142.9-243.9 (63.6-123.0) (-2.46--1.86)
Central Asia 239581.1 89369.2 312.2 91.9 -4.59
(223024.5-255329.7) (79553.1-104245.0) (292.7-330.2) (81.9-106.9) (-5.00--4.18)
Central Europe 97125.7 50961.7 79.9 35 -3.14
(94586.5-100389.8) (47614.4-54324.4) (77.6-82.7) (32.5-37.5) (-3.35--2.93)
Central Latin America 137215 68055.9 76.8 27.2 -3.4
(130965.5-145168.5) (60680.1-77390.7) (74.0-80.4) (24.1-31.1) (-3.75--3.05)
Central Sub-Saharan Africa 257311.2 235984.3 373.4 198.4 -1.96
(193361.3-320592.3) (160862.9-501044.6) (287.2-455.8) (138.8-391.7) (-2.11--1.82)
East Asia 1166581.4 299191.6 103.7 19.7 -5.57
(894716.8-1360618) (229993.4-363949.8) (80.3-120.8) (15.6-23.7) (-5.72--5.42)
Eastern Europe 437703 231377.1 197.6 93 -3.59
(428782.1-446284.3) (213525.9-249871.7) (193.4-202.2) (86.3-100.2) (-4.66--2.50)
Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa 874456.3 705648.8 376.4 184.5 -2.3
(651482.7-1046487.2) (514918.9-991547.3) (300.5-455.3) (142.0-252.1) (-2.35--2.25)
High-income Asia Pacific 93755.8 41879.4 56.4 15.4 -4.51
(85584.1-100822.9) (38120.4-45216.0) (51.4-61.3) (14.5-17.0) (-4.85--4.17)
High-income North America 245430.1 108416.6 92.9 27.3 -3.66
(242083.1-248807.1) (104202.8-111365.9) (91.8-94.3) (26.3-28.2) (-3.91--3.40)
North Africa and Middle East 1146712.4 568637.6 296.4 91.3 -4.04
(653758.9-1406058.2) (439721.3-689963.1) (168.3-358.6) (70.5-110.2) (-4.18--3.89)
Oceania 15207.8 26831.4 210.7 177.3 -0.58
(9038.1-21996.5) (16370.5-41844.4) (139.7-292.7) (116.0-267.3) (-0.74--0.41)
South Asia 1962235 1659783.2 167.7 89.1 -2.09
(1539353.6-2254002.2) (1221749.2-1908202.8) (132.2-190.9) (65.8-102.6) (-2.20--1.98)
Southeast Asia 356202.3 206829.1 70.5 31.1 -2.62
(268076.1-415241.7) (163463.9-243703.5) (54.7-80.7) (24.2-36.8) (-2.69--2.56)
Southern Latin America 55615.3 28757.1 113.1 41.6 -2.98
(54397.6-56788.3) (27513.7-30151.7) (110.7-115.4) (39.5-43.9) (-3.26--2.71)
Southern Sub-Saharan Africa 183518 184719.7 340.2 232.6 -0.93
(146952.2-211916.0) (151803.9-217519.3) (274.7-394.3) (193.3-272.9) (-1.23--0.62)
Tropical Latin America 119496.4 51880 78.3 22.2 -4.01
(112039.5-126935.8) (49385.4-54347.1) (74.1-82.5) (20.8458-23.3967) (-4.29--3.72)
Western Europe 157611.5 62825.2 41.8 11.7 -4.12
(154750.7-159605.5) (59367.2-65023.4) (41.2-42.4) (11.3-12.1) (-4.26--3.98)
Western Sub-Saharan Africa 536767.4 887621.3 204.4 163.2 -0.72
(362055.8-674589.1) (333296.1-1241130.5) (138.8-252.1) (65.2-228.5) (-1.01--0.43)
YLDs
Global 3237550 2897121.1 64.7 35.1 -2.02
(2241786.2-4411065.7) (1941036.7-4106470.5) (44.5-88.6) (23.6-49.6) (-2.10--1.94)
Andean Latin America 60025.2 49764.7 173.2 74.8 -2.79
(43167.2-77905.8) (34199.5-68668.0) (124.1-223.6) (51.5-103.4) (-2.84--2.74)
Australasia 15868.1 20768.9 72.9 55.7 -0.78
(8662.2-26339.9) (11164.6-34611.5) (39.7-120.6) (29.9-91.7) (-0.84--0.73)
Caribbean 64017.8 67333.4 186.4 137.7 -0.94
(46034.8-82458.4) (48282.7-89496.2) (134.2-239.2) (99.6-182.0) (-1.03--0.84)
Central Asia 102836.9 80910 164 83.3 -2.5
(74317.7-135436.3) (55581.9-113003.4) (117.5071-218.9) (57.2-116.2) (-2.69--2.30)
Central Europe 139841.4 74970.6 103.9 50.7 -2.32
(95933.2-194843.3) (43857.6-116363.5) (71.1-144.8) (29.8-78.0) (-2.41--2.24)
Central Latin America 434641.9 275702.6 273 105.9 -2.43
(308911.9-565901.7) (194499.5-376507.1) (196.5-355.1) (74.9-144.7) (-2.72--2.14)
Central Sub-Saharan Africa 32910.1 53520.9 71.5 46.8 -1.32
(23860.3-42822.3) (38508.3-68810.6) (52.2-91.1) (33.7-60.7) (-1.47--1.17)
East Asia 372970.7 257423.3 31.1 14.1 -2.62
(263363.6-493118.0) (150734.8-396753.5) (21.8-41.2) (8.3-21.7) (-2.72--2.51)
Eastern Europe 255062.9 145558.6 101.8 54.2 -2.4
(172242.0-364212.9) (88320.1-222480.4) (69.0-145.0) (33.0-82.6) (-2.82--1.99)
Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa 171284.4 260185.6 107 71.5 -1.25
(122697.3-222030.7) (186869.4-336319.0) (77.1-136.6) (51.0-93.1) (-1.32--1.18)
High-income Asia Pacific 140897.7 122646.7 72.8 47 -1.52
(78120.0-232579.8) (66555.5-207622.3) (40.4-119.5) (25.3-78.6) (-1.63--1.40)
High-income North America 186481.7 159726.9 59.7 33.6 -1.98
(102283.0-314999.6) (87339.3-271133.4) (32.7-100.3) (18.3-57.1) (-2.30--1.66)
North Africa and Middle East 102958.4 94214.8 37 15.3 -3
(72623.8-135034.8) (62432.3-134891.0) (25.9-49.2) (10.0-22.0) (-3.11--2.89)
Oceania 4574.8 10713.6 80.1 83.3 0.11
(3315.4-5929.0) (7799.5-13900.3) (58.2-104.0) (61.1-107.5) (0.01-0.21)
Fig 1. Graph of successive trends in the burden of injury caused by fire, heat and hot substances between 1990 and 2021.

Fig 1

A-F represent the changes in the burden of Prevalence, Death, Incidence, Disability-Adjusted Life Years, Years of Life Lost and Years Lived with Disability of burn, respectively.

Incidence, prevalence and death from 1990 to 2021

Compared to 1990, there was a decrease in both number and Age-Standardized Incidence Rate (ASIR) and Age-Standardized Death Rate (ASDR) caused by burn injuries in 2021. The EAPC for Incidence and Death were -1.33 ([95% CI] -1.42 to -1.23) and -2.18 ([95% CI] -2.33 to -2.03), respectively. However, in Oceania, both the number and ASIR increased, with an EAPC of 0.18 ([95% CI] 0.10 to 0.26). In contrast, Prevalence exhibited a slightly different trend compared to Incidence and Death. Globally, Age-Standardized Prevalence Rate (ASPR) decreased from 2117.3 cases per 100,000 population in 1990 to 1334.9 cases per 100,000 population in 2021, with an EAPC of -1.54 ([95% CI] -1.62 to -1.47), while number showed an increasing trend. However, in Oceania, both the number and ASIR and ASPR showed an upward trend, with EAPCs of 0.18 ([95% CI] 0.10 to 0.26) and 0.084 ([95% CI] -0.003 to 0.170), respectively (Tables 2). Additionally, Figs 1 reveals that the global burden of the disease, as reflected in Prevalence, Incidence, and Death, has shown a continuous decline from 1990 to 2021. Furthermore, the number and ASR are higher for males compared to females

Table 2. Burden of injuries caused by fire, heat, and substances in Incidence, Prevalence and Death between 1990 and 2021.

1990 Number 2021 Number 1990 2021 Estimated Annual Percent Change
(95% UI) (95% UI) Age-Standardized Rate Age-Standardized Rate (95% CI)
(95% UI) (95% UI)
Incidence
Global 9862413.1 9198163.9 176.1 118.8 -1.33
(8005030.5-11572267.1) (7592028.2-10784349.7) (145.0-205.3) (97.5-139.4) (-1.42--1.23)
Andean Latin America 150399.8 170721.4 343.1 255.2 -1.03
(120257.8-180234.5) (135990.8-205389.3) (282.9-403.7) (202.7-307.7) (-1.06--1.00)
Australasia 66853.7 68420 344.8 258.1 -0.85
(53651.2-78523.4) (55328.9-79773.9) (275.8-406.6) (204.2-307.5) (-0.90--0.80)
Caribbean 167183.7 166589.1 437.9 373.8 -0.42
(134531.6-199733.7) (135600.3-197178.1) (356.5-521.6) (301.0-446.4) (-0.56--0.28)
Central Asia 339575.1 279818.9 453.4 289.5 -1.71
(286508.9-386986.1) (231899.3-323856) (384.6-512.0) (241.5-333.5) (-1.83--1.60)
Central Europe 439988.8 265395.9 365.1 269.4 -0.99
(363819.9-518194.7) (220254.8-307250.4) (300.2-432.4) (215.0-320.8) (-1.05--0.93)
Central Latin America 1079802 780688.4 533.1 329.7 -1.03
(845728.8-1354423.8) (605576.9-978321.8) (423.7-659.1) (256.9-417.8) (-1.31--0.75)
Central Sub-Saharan Africa 84386. 3 162879.2 138.2 107.6 -0.84
(64817.2-103454.6) (126942.2-200895.3) (110.8-163.5) (87.1-128.7) (-0.92--0.75)
East Asia 1015437.2 890129.9 77.5 68.4 -0.2
(771715.8-1247848.9) (700328.5-1067688.3) (59.9-94.5) (51.7-84.1) (-0.34--0.05)
Eastern Europe 914823.7 563533.1 411.6 284.9 -1.49
(771107.8-1057198.1) (479300.6-645859.0) (344.8-474.8) (239.0-328.1) (-1.87--1.10)
Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa 468720.5 808080.3 213.4 164.8 -0.95
(358005.9-583688.5) (625516.7-990740.9) (169.3-255.5) (131.9-196.3) (-1.02--0.88)
High-income Asia Pacific 545881.5 316483.8 328.5 212 -1.56
(452659.8-634318.9) (260308.1-366897.5) (270.6-381.1) (167.9-253.3) (-1.68--1.44)
High-income North America 770785.3 548639.2 275.8 155.1 -2
(636852.8-900869.8) (451482.5-639920.1) (227.1-322.0) (126.4-183.6) (-2.3--1.69)
North Africa and Middle East 347901.7 379764.5 92.1 58 -1.62
(276129.5-418676.3) (309522.2-449067.3) (73.5-109.2) (47.4-68.7) (-1.72--1.51)
Oceania 13269.2 29708.1 180.5 196.2 0.18
(10723.1-15842.1) (24306.8-34719.7) (147.3-213.9) (162.0-228.5) (0.10-0.26)
South Asia 825516.7 1056121.8 69.5 53.2 -0.97
(641508.3-1000587) (846499.8-1264030.2) (54.6-83.7) (42.8-63.1) (-1.1--0.83)
Southeast Asia 564535.4 640766.6 110.2 90.9 -0.51
(435382.7-687655.9) (505978.6-763168.7) (87.1-131.5) (71.4-108.6) (-0.58--0.43)
Southern Latin America 318432. 9 302325.7 630.9 484.3 -0.7
(262522.9-370933.1) (253496.5-347483) (522.3-732.7) (401.4-560.6) (-0.85--0.55)
Southern Sub-Saharan Africa 151293.1 158732 263.6 187.4 -1.27
(122558.6-177655.2) (132410.5-182981.6) (216.5-308.6) (157.3-215.7) (-1.40--1.13)
Tropical Latin America 462476.3 351867.2 277.2 161.3 -2.51
(367612.1-561542) (291760.9-410080.9) (225.8-329.4) (132.5-189.6) (-2.81--2.21)
Western Europe 827400.6 597171.2 244.9 172.7 -1.2
(688169.4-977977.4) (493834.0-694148.5) (199.4-289.4) (137.5-206.7) (-1.23--1.17)
Western Sub-Saharan Africa 307749.9 660328.3 141.4 119.5 -0.56
(234817.5-385415.8) (516317.0-806461.0) (111.8-170.4) (97.2-142.4) (-0.65--0.48)
Deaths
Global 137006.9 117406 2.7 1.5 -2.18
(113892.7-150141.8) (92583.4-135183.8) (2.3-3.0) (1.2-1.7) (-2.33--2.03)
Andean Latin America 860.7 503.2 2.4 0.8 -3.98
(714-966.7) (413.7-621.6) (2.0-2.7) (0.7-1.0) (-4.33--3.64)
Australasia 156.9 82.7 0.74 0.19 -4.98
(151.3-162.5) (76-87.5) (0.72-0.77) (0.18-0.2) (-5.66--4.29)
Caribbean 1088.4 724.3 3.1 1.5 -2.15
(856.2-1345.7) (567.8-909.6) (2.6-3.8) (1.2-2.0) (-2.43--1.87)
Central Asia 3788.5 1745.3 5.6 1.9 -4.114
(3563.8-3988.9) (1562.1-1982) (5.3-5.9) (1.7-2.1) (-4.52--3.71)
Central Europe 2375.7 1735.6 1.8 0.9 -2.53
(2316.9-2444.0) (1616.7-1844.1) (1.7 -1.9) (0.8-1.0) (-2.74--2.32)
Central Latin America 2190.4 1619.7 1.57 0.6 -2.96
(2115.7-2282.2) (1462.7-1806.5) (1.52-1.61) (0.5-0.7) (-3.26--2.66)
Central Sub-Saharan Africa 3759.2 4390.6 8.5 5.8 -1.24
(2864.0-4640.9) (3065.7-8818.5) (6.7-10.7) (4.1-9.9) (-1.34--1.14)
East Asia 20038.2 10862.5 2.2 0.6 -4.09
(15413.6-23117.5) (8218.4-13220.4) (1.7-2.5) (0.5-0.8) (-4.24--3.94)
Eastern Europe 9682.7 6834.6 4.06 2.4 -2.99
(9473.1-9841.3) (6297.8-7374.2) (3.97-4.13) (2.2-2.5) (-4.09--1.89)
Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa 13047.7 12907 8.8 5.3 -1.74
(10330.9-15595.8) (9919.3-17650.5) (7.3-11.1) (4.2-6.8) (-1.78--1.70)
High-income Asia Pacific 2367.4 1992.9 1.3 0.48 -3.645
(2209.9-2563.1) (1712.9-2163.4) (1.2-1.4) (0.43-0.51) (-3.93--3.35)
High-income North America 5185.7 3343.4 1.76 0.65 -2.89
(5033.8-5282.4) (3132.3-3459.2) (1.72-1.79) (0.62-0.67) (-3.11--2.66)
North Africa and Middle East 17176.7 10837.7 5.4 1.9 -3.62
(9739.5-20777.3) (8509.5-12895.7) (3.1-6.5) (1.5-2.3) (-3.78--3.47)
Oceania 235.3 426.3 4 3.3 -0.66
(155.7-326.6) (289-636.5) (3.0-5.4) (2.4-4.8) (-0.81--0.51)
South Asia 31427.1 32843 3.2 1.9 -1.72
(24839.6-35707.2) (24688.1-37704.1) (2.6-3.7) (1.5-2.2) (-1.79--1.64)
Southeast Asia 5402.5 4355.8 1.3 0.7 -2.07
(4316.4-6173.2) (3523.8-5060.8) (1.0-1.4) (0.5-0.8) (-2.14--1.99)
Southern Latin America 1216.1 824.2 2.6 1 -2.67
(1189.3-1244.4) (777.6-865.1) (2.5-2.7) (0.9-1.1) (-2.91--2.42)
Southern Sub-Saharan Africa 3035 3602.6 6.8 5.1 -0.74
(2460.6-3528.5) (3063.6-4183.9) (5.7-8.0) (4.4-5.9) (-1.06--0.41)
Tropical Latin America 1996.4 1365.2 1.57 0.56 -3.41
(1910.7-2080.7) (1286.1-1422.4) (1.51-1.63) (0.52-0.59) (-3.64--3.18)
Western Europe 4362.8 2549 0.94 0.32 -3.49
(4186.9-4453.2) (2288.1-2685.4) (0.91-0.96) (0.30-0.34) (-3.62--3.35)
Western Sub-Saharan Africa 7613.6 13860.4 4.1 3.9 -0.24
(5165.4-9437.2) (5501.6-19367.0) (2.9-5.1) (1.7-5.4) (-0.55-0.06)
Prevalence
Global 99831015.3 111726710.3 2117.3 1334.9 -1.54
(85229366.8-117584467.8) (94066728.6-132527344.8) (1800.7-2491.9) (1125.8-1581.2) (-1.62--1.47)
Andean Latin America 1123702.3 1641285.4 3574.2 2493.5 -1.23
(970028.1-1326322.2) (1407113.6-1959525.9) (3109.4-4176.7) (2143.0-2967.1) (-1.26--1.20)
Australasia 944731.6 1252878.5 4311.6 3300.7 -0.77
(791211.5-1141706.4) (1045144.3-1504332.5) (3601.9-5223.5) (2753.4-3993.9) (-0.83--0.72)
Caribbean 1433681.6 1905115.9 4445.3 3786.8 -0.34
(1223033.1-1720833.2) (1632348.1-2276964.4) (3813.5-5273.8) (3242.7-4533.6) (-0.54--0.25)
Central Asia 2695748.1 2757244.4 4560.7 2881.1 -1.74
(2354493.7-3134751.4) (2361390.4-3237524.4) (3978.3-5300.9) (2467.0-3378.3) (-1.87--1.62)
Central Europe 4872211 3817589.4 3539.5 2494 -1.13
(4146291.7-5724023.2) (3187226.9-4553985) (3013.1-4155.0) (2091.6-2992.2) (-1.18--1.08)
Central Latin America 8032831.1 8468246.5 5560.4 3245.1 -1.18
(6687527.9-10258155.8) (7093267.2-10833930.7) (4682.1-6998.6) (2716.7-4154.8) (-1.47--0.89)
Central Sub-Saharan Africa 570964.8 1114769.6 1469.2 1120 -0.9
(489901.5-678521.6) (950923.5-1331821.3) (1263.5-1719.5) (956.8-1323.4) (-1.01--0.80)
East Asia 9475612.4 12711293.1 832.6 682.8 -0.49
(7964928.3-11416953.9) (10401874.7-15585652.6) (696.2-1000.2) (559.1-836.8) (-0.61--0.36)
Eastern Europe 9668474.8 7128084 3775 2574.9 -1.56
(8161860.6-11349384.9) (5977003.5-8349756.5) (3200.6-4432.4) (2149.8-3037.8) (-1.93--1.19)
Eastern Sub-Saharan Africa 3014221 5412902.6 2262.2 1709.3 -0.98
(2588122.4-3605212.6) (4624280.4-6485853.5) (1947.2-2685.0) (1462.2-2025.0) (-1.07--0.91)
High-income Asia Pacific 8156790.1 7439252.2 4183.8 2773.8 -1.45
(6861570.9-9785543.9) (6137812.4-8937164.7) (3522.0-5016.8) (2294.3-3366.1) (-1.58--1.32)
High-income North America 11189306.7 9809902.3 3557.1 2030.3 -1.95
(9329779.3-13375637.2) (8044282.1-11747273.8) (2968.2-4251.3) (1662.9-2442.7) (-2.26--1.63)
North Africa and Middle East 2525991 3626899.7 997.3 603.7 -1.76
(2133929-2998895.8) (3006184.2-4369208) (834.8-1189.6) (500.2-726.2) (-1.88--1.63)
Oceania 93082.7 231146.6 1868.4 1969.9 0.084
(80042.6-108372) (200247.2-268735.2) (1603.3-2177.2) (1703.2-2293.3) (-0.003-0.170)
South Asia 6698291 10483440.9 784.1 589.3 -1.04
(5616255.2-7966089) (8721111.5-12516508.3) (653.6-933.9) (490.5-703.0) (-1.19--0.88)
Southeast Asia 4430761.5 6792791.5 1170.5 925.3 -0.65
(3790576.4-5300389.9) (5700258.9-8112030.8) (991.3-1390.0) (777.3-1104.2) (-0.73--0.57)
Southern Latin America 3901569.3 4641010.3 8126.2 6115 -0.77
(3389364.9-4561640.5) (3989792-5447961.5) (7067.0-9486.1) (5244.9-7177.7) (-0.90--0.63)
Southern Sub-Saharan Africa 1135107 1428574.6 2862 1894.5 -1.53
(969698.2-1340509.9) (1213459.1-1693578.9) (2414.5-3398.0) (1605.7-2247.6) (-1.67--1.38)
Tropical Latin America 3740747.9 4015600.1 2863.5 1596.7 -2.64
(3199129.3-4473054.5) (3412595.5-4733456.7) (2442.0-3360.4) (1361.3-1887.4) (-2.92--2.36)
Western Europe 14034599.1 12677173.3 3119.9 2210.7 -1.19
(11779739.2-16772001.7) (10593100.1-15161649.8) (2624.9-3743.0) (1844.6-2663.0) (-1.22--1.15)
Western Sub-Saharan Africa 2092590.5 4371509.5 1485.2 1230.7 -0.62
(1792687.6-2524018.7) (3749007.4-5228113.8) (1273.2-1766.1) (1056.0-1449.8) (-0.71--0.53)

Comparison of burn injuries by sexes from 1990 to 2021

In Figs 1, the global trend of the disease burden over time, showing a continuous decline in these six indicators from 1990 to 2021. Moreover, the Number and ASR of DALYs YLLs and YLDs for females are higher than those for males. The differences between sexes in terms of Prevalence, Incidence, and Death are inversely related.

Specifically, comparison of GBD due to burn injuries by sexes globally from 1990 to 2021 revealed that on a global level, ASR of DALYs for females exceeded that for males. Additionally, ASR of YLDs, YLLs, and Prevalence were higher in females compared to males. Conversely, ASIR and ASDR were higher in males. (S2 File)

Furthermore, for 2021, this study illustrated sexes disparities in burn injuries. In high and middle SDI regions such as Central Asia, Oceania, and Australasia, males exhibited higher burn injuries burden compared to females across six metrics. Conversely, in South Asia, females consistently showed higher burn injuries burden than males (S3 File). In general, the global burden of burn injuries are more severe for males.

Global, regional and national burn injuries burden based on SDI

High ASRs for Incidence (Figs 2A), Prevalence (Figs 2B) and YLDs (Figs 2F) are more prevalent in middle to high SDI regions such as the Americas, Europe, and Australia. Conversely, high ASRs for Death (Figs 2C), DALYs (Figs 2D), and YLLs (Figs 2E) are predominantly concentrated in lower SDI regions such as Africa, Oceania, and Eastern Europe. Furthermore, from 1990 to 2021, overall ASRs for Incidence, Prevalence, Death, DALYs, YLLs and YLDs generally decrease with increasing SDI (Figs 2A-F). Additionally, regions with middle to high SDI levels exhibit a more pronounced disease burden from burn injuries. Furthermore, the burden of burn injuries in 204 countries decreases with the increasing SDI (S1 Fig).

Fig 2. Age-Standardized Rate of injuries caused by fire, heat and hot substances in 22 GBD regions with varying Social-Demographic Index globally from 1990 to 2021.

Fig 2

A. is for the Age-Standardized Rate of Incidence; B. is for the Age-Standardized Rate of Prevalence; C. is for the Age-Standardized Rate of Death; D. is for the Age-Standardized Rate of Disability-Adjusted Life Years. (E) The Age-Standardized Rate of Years of Life Lost; F. is for the Age-Standardized Rate of Years Lived with Disability.

Additionally, the Frontier analysis revealed that as societal and demographic development progresses, the EF have generally increased, indicating a greater potential for burden of burn improvement. Otherwise, the top five countries or regions with the greatest EF (42.14 ~ 72.99) were the Netherlands, Germany, Canada, the United States, and Iceland. Conversely, the top five countries or regions with the smallest EF (0 ~ 4.09) were Somalia, Timor-Leste, Papua New Guinea, Yemen, and Laos ((Figs 3, S3 File).

Fig 3. Frontier analysis of injuries’ burden caused by fire, heat, and hot substances from 1990 to 2021.

Fig 3

Frontier analysis is depicted with a black solid line representing the boundary, and points representing countries or regions. The trends of Social-Demographic Index and Age-Standardized Rate for each country and region are presented in a gradient of blue. And the 15 countries with the largest effective differences are marked in black font. Countries with lower SDI (<0.5) and lower EF are marked in blue font. Countries or regions with higher SDI (>0.8) and higher EF are marked in red font. Additionally, from 1990 to 2021, red points indicate an increase in the Age-Standardized Rate of burn; blue points indicate a decrease in the Age-Standardized Rate of burn. A. - F. represent the burden changes of burn Incidence, Prevalence, Death, Disability-Adjusted Life Years, Years of Life Lost, and Years Lived with Disability in each country or region from 1990 to 2021, as well as the distance to the “Frontier.” G. - L. represent the burden of burn Incidence, Prevalence, Death, Disability-Adjusted Life Years, Years of Life Lost, and Years Lived with Disability in each country or region in 2021, as well as the distance to the “Frontier.”.

Forecasting burn injuries burden from 2021 to 2030 base on BAPC model

Due to the direct influence of data volume on the fitting error of the BAPC model, this study selected DALYs, Prevalence and Death, which have larger data volumes, as the indicators for BAPC model forecasting.

The goodness of fit of the ASR forecast fan plots for both sexes, as depicted in Figs 4, was highly satisfactory for DALYs (Figs 4A, 4B), Prevalence (Figs 4C, 4D), and Death (Figs 4E, 4F). The precision of the forecasts was indicated by the narrowness of the fan plot sectors, signifying a reduced level of uncertainty and an optimal model fit. Furthermore, the projections extended to the year 2030, revealing a consistent downward trajectory in the burden of burn injuries for both sexes.

Fig 4. Predictions of Age-Standardized Rate of burden caused by fire, heat and hot substances for different sexes in 2030 based on the Bayesian Age-Period-Cohort model.

Fig 4

A. and B. is for the prediction of the male and female Age-Standardized Disability-Adjusted Life Years Rate respectively; B. is for the prediction of the female Age-Standardized Disability-Adjusted Life Years Rate; C. and D. is for the prediction of male and female Age-Standardized Prevalence Rate; E. and F. is for the prediction of male and female Age-Standardized Death Rate.

As we had not only predicted the ASR, but also the Number worldwide. The results of BAPC indicated that although the Number of DALYs for children were projected to decrease over the next 9 years, they remain high across all age groups. Additionally, each indicator had a peak value. Furthermore, by 2030, the Number of DALYs were projected to decrease for both sexes. However, males Prevalence was projected to increase from 5,476,178 cases in 2021–6,012,334 cases in 2030, while female from 5,694,956 cases to 6,269,209 cases totally. Lastly, as shown in S4 File, Death for both sexes were increasing in age groups above 70; although there is a decrease by 2030, the Number remained relatively high, with the peak focusing on the 0–9 age group (S4 File).

In addition, the predictive outcomes of the BAPC model indicated that by 2030, the ASR of DALYs for females and males are projected to decrease from 114.09 and 90.83 per 100,000 population in 2021 to 92.89 and 77.62 per 100,000 population, respectively, representing an approximate 20% reduction for both sexes. Furthermore, the ASPR for females and males had also been projected to decline from 1333.41 and 1310.82 per 100,000 population in 2021 to 1281.93 and 1256.62 per 100,000 population by 2030, marking a reduction of about 4% for both sexes. Lastly, the ASDR for females and males were anticipated to drop from 1.49 and 1.34 per 100,000 population in 2021 to 1.19 and 1.10 per 100,000 population by 2030, which corresponds to a reduction of approximately 20% for both sexes. Moreover, the ASR of burn injuries across different age groups revealed that the current severe burden of burn injuries is predominantly concentrated among the elderly population (S4 File).

Discussion

Overall, the GBD from these injuries shows a declining trend. While some Numbers have increased, ASR have decreased. This may be linked to the advancements in contemporary medical care and the increasing awareness of disease prevention. With technological progress in burn injuries care, rehabilitation medicine, and other related fields, treatments such as autologous and allogenic skin grafting, management of severe infections, emergency response, and functional reconstruction during disease stability can contribute to reducing the disease burden of it [24,25].

Burn injuries, for instance, result from multiple causes such as contact with flames, smoke, hot materials, and electrical injuries. Patients with burn injuries face a range of complications including physical and psychological impairments, sepsis, among others [3]. Based on the research findings of disease burden studies across different regions with varying SDI levels, it is evident that regions with heavier burn injuries burden are predominantly concentrated in middle to high SDI regions. For instance, a retrospective study conducted in Victoria, Australia from 2003 to 2021 had revealed a declining trend in hospitalization rates due to occupational exposure to fires, flames, or smoke. However, injuries caused by occupational exposures were found to be more severe compared to non-occupational injuries [26]. Simultaneously, a population-based study conducted in the area from 2008 to 2017 identified a higher disease burden of burn injuries among male patients, consistent with the findings of S2 File in this study comparing disease burdens between male and female in Australia [27]. In addition to high SDI regions, significant sex differences in GBD are also observed in middle SDI regions. Taking South Asia in S2 File as an example, the DALYs and Prevalence among females were much higher than males. Sex differences arise from multiple factors. This may be attributed to the widespread industrialization and advanced technology in high-SDI regions and countries, where males are more commonly employed in mechanical engineering and jobs involving exposure to hot substances. In contrast, in regions with lower economic levels, cooking safety is often compromised, contributing to different patterns in burn injuries incidence between sexes. Concurrently, there is supporting evidence for our findings. A systematic review based on South Asia indicated that flame-related burn injuries and scalds accounted for over 80% of total burn injuries in the region, being the most common types of injuries observed in children and women [28]. Furthermore, predictions from the BAPC model suggest that children aged 0–9 are at extremely high risk. Several studies indicate that unintentional contact with heat sources by children is often a key contributing factor to the persistent occurrence of childhood burn injuries cases [2932].

Overall, the GBD of burn injuries had decreased. This can be attributed to advancements in disease treatment and functional recovery. Developments such as autologous skin grafting, adipose-derived stem cell in situ injection, pressure garments, local silicone therapy, and burn physical therapy have significantly alleviated the disease burden among burn injuries survivors [3337]. But clinical and rehabilitation treatments for burn injuries patients still face challenges. This is evident in the obstacles burn injuries survivors encounter when returning to work, with reports indicating that fewer than half of the included participants regained productivity (46%). Various complex factors contribute to this, including ages, burn injuries severity, and post-injury employment status [38].This undoubtedly confirms the substantial global economic burden imposed by burn injuries [6]. Additionally, patients with extensive burn injuries face a high probability of sepsis and have limited availability of autologous skin. Consequently, autologous skin grafting and multidrug-resistant bacterial infections are often challenging issues for patients. However, novel treatment approaches for burn injuries patients continue to emerge, such as cultured epidermal autografts applicable to patients with extensive burn and limited autologous skin survival, as well as mitochondrial transplant therapy [39,40]. However, such emerging treatment approaches are still in their nascent stages, requiring further research to explore and refine their efficacy.

In this study, we using the BAPC model to forecast number from 2021 to 2030 by sexes, the elderly population shows a continued increase in Death compared to 2021 (Figs 4). Therefore, in the context of a decreasing ASR of disease burden caused by hot, heat and hot substances, policymakers should proactively implement measures to reduce the likelihood of an increase in number. Such measures could include improving summer cooling conditions, increasing vegetation, conducting safety education, and enhancing public awareness [41].

Lastly, Frontier analysis plays a crucial role in optimizing the allocation of health resources. It can assist policymakers in prioritizing efficient health interventions within limited resources to achieve the greatest health benefits. By identifying the best performers among efficiency Frontier countries, targeted policies can be formulated to optimize the investment of funds and resources. Specifically, by comparing the performance of different countries at the same SDI level, we can learn from the successful experiences of efficiency frontier countries and develop more effective disease control and prevention policies. The frontier analysis in this study reveals that the potential for burn burden improvement is lower in low SDI countries and higher in high SDI countries. This insight underscores the importance of tailored interventions that consider the specific development contexts of different regions. By leveraging the knowledge of best practices from countries on the efficiency frontier, policymakers can make more informed decisions and allocate resources strategically to address the health challenges that are most pertinent to their own socio-demographic context [1719,42].

This study conducted multidimensional analyses across different sexes, age groups, and levels of SDI to understand GBD trends. However, this study also has limitations, unlike epidemiological studies focusing on specific regions or single-center studies, GBD research cannot achieve precise analysis. Subsequently, the GBD 2021 data does not differentiate the severity of injuries caused by fire, heat, and hot substances. Moreover, due to variations in the efficiency of healthcare and public health statistical systems across different SDI regions, data collected from regions with lower efficiency may exhibit disparities. The aforementioned deficiencies may lead to inaccuracies in the current global burden of disease estimates for burn.

Conclusion

Both the current and predicted results indicated an increasing burden in the Number of injuries caused by fire, heat and hot substances, and the ASR showed a declining trend globally, especially in lower SDI regions. And this study assists policy makers to monitor the global burden of burn. Moreover, it can also provide solid scientific evidence for local health authorities and burn surgical professionals to conduct evidence-based interventions to prevent its development among the identified vulnerable populations.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Age-Standardized Rate of injuries caused by fire, heat and hot substances in 204 countries with varying Social-Demographic Index globally in 2021.

A. is for the Age-Standardized Rate of Incidence; B. is for the Age-Standardized Rate of Prevalence; C. is for the Age-Standardized Rate of Death; D. is for the Age-Standardized Rate of Disability-Adjusted Life Years. (E) The Age-Standardized Rate of Years of Life Lost; F. is for the Age-Standardized Rate of Years Lived with Disability.

(PDF)

pone.0324481.s001.pdf (4.6MB, pdf)
S1 File. Formulas of disease burden indicators.

Formulas of Age-Standardized Rate, Estimated Annual Percentage Change, Frontier Analysis, and Bayesian Age - Period - Cohort model.

(DOCX)

pone.0324481.s002.docx (25.7KB, docx)
S2 File. The burden of injuries caused by fire, heat and hot substances in female and male across 22 GBD regions.

The burden of Disability-Adjusted Life Years, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived with Disability, Incidence, Death, and Prevalence of burn in male and female.

(XLSX)

pone.0324481.s003.xlsx (49KB, xlsx)
S3 File. Frontier Analysis: Countries with high potential for improvement in the burden of injuries caused by fire, heat, and hot substances in 2021.

The burden of Disability-Adjusted Life Years, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived with Disability, Incidence, Death, and Prevalence of burn in high potential for improvement.

(XLSX)

pone.0324481.s004.xlsx (30KB, xlsx)
S4 File. The burden forecast of injuries caused by fire, heat, and hot substances for 2021–2030.

The forecast of Prevalence, Death, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years Numbers as well as Age-Standardized Rates for injuries caused by fire, heat, and hot substances in males and females from 2021 to 2030.

(XLSX)

pone.0324481.s005.xlsx (45.3KB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

This study most wants to thank the GBD2021 collaborators, because without their summary, there would be no disease burden data for so many diseases.

Data Availability

This study utilized data resources from the Global Burden of Disease database(https://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-2021), provided by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington.

Funding Statement

Self-funded research project of Health and Family Planning Commission of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region(Z20180240). And the funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.James SL, Lucchesi LR, Bisignano C, Castle CD, Dingels ZV, Fox JT, et al. Epidemiology of injuries from fire, heat and hot substances: global, regional and national morbidity and mortality estimates from the Global Burden of Disease 2017 study. Inj Prev. 2020;26(Supp 1):i36–45. doi: 10.1136/injuryprev-2019-043299 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Panayi AC, Herndon DN, Branski L, Sjöberg F, Hundeshagen G. Bridging frailty and burns: Defining acute burn injury as a cause of long-term frailty. Maturitas. 2024;187:108061. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2024.108061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dvorak JE, Ladhani HA, Claridge JA. Review of Sepsis in Burn Patients in 2020. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2021;22(1):37–43. doi: 10.1089/sur.2020.367 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Haug VF, Tapking C, Panayi AC, Thiele P, Wang AT, Obed D, et al. Long-term sequelae of critical illness in sepsis, trauma and burns: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2021;91(4):736–47. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000003349 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ozhathil DK, Tay MW, Wolf SE, Branski LK. A Narrative Review of the History of Skin Grafting in Burn Care. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021;57(4):380. doi: 10.3390/medicina57040380 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gerstl JVE, Ehsan AN, Lassarén P, Yearley A, Raykar NP, Anderson GA, et al. The Global Macroeconomic Burden of Burn Injuries. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024;153(3):743–52. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000010595 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hop MJ, Wijnen BFM, Nieuwenhuis MK, Dokter J, Middelkoop E, Polinder S, et al. Economic burden of burn injuries in the Netherlands: A 3 months follow-up study. Injury. 2016;47(1):203–10. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2015.09.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zeng Z, Li N, Yang L, Feng X, Zuo F, Luo G, et al. Cost analysis of severe burn victims in Southwest China: A 7-year retrospective study. Front Public Health. 2023;10:1052293. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1052293 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mirahmadizadeh A, Moftakhar L, Dehghani SS, Hassanzadeh J, Dehghani SP, Azarbakhsh H. Mortality Rate and Years of Life Lost Due to Burns in Southern Iran During 2004-2019: A Population-Based Study. Arch Iran Med. 2023;26(4):205–11. doi: 10.34172/aim.2023.31 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.GBD 2021 Causes of Death Collaborators. Global burden of 288 causes of death and life expectancy decomposition in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet. 2024;403(10440):2100–32. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00367-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.GBD 2021 Sickle Cell Disease Collaborators. Global, regional, and national prevalence and mortality burden of sickle cell disease, 2000-2021: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet Haematol. 2023;10(8):e585–99. doi: 10.1016/S2352-3026(23)00118-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.GBD 2021 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability (YLDs), disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 371 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories and 811 subnational locations, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet. 2024;403(10440):2133–61. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00757-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.GBD 2021 Diabetes Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of diabetes from 1990 to 2021, with projections of prevalence to 2050: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Lancet. 2023;402(10397):203–34. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01301-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wyper GMA, Grant I, Fletcher E, McCartney G, Fischbacher C, Stockton DL. How do world and European standard populations impact burden of disease studies? A case study of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in Scotland. Archives of Public Health. 2020; 78:1. doi: 10.1186/s13690-019-0383-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Xie Y, Bowe B, Mokdad AH, Xian H, Yan Y, Li T, et al. Analysis of the Global Burden of Disease study highlights the global, regional, and national trends of chronic kidney disease epidemiology from 1990 to 2016. Kidney Int. 2018;94(3):567–81. doi: 10.1016/j.kint.2018.04.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Han T, Chen W, Qiu X, Wang W. Epidemiology of gout - Global burden of disease research from 1990 to 2019 and future trend predictions. Ther Adv Endocrinol Metab. 2024;15:20420188241227295. doi: 10.1177/20420188241227295 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chen X, Zhou C-W, Fu Y-Y, Li Y-Z, Chen L, Zhang Q-W, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of chronic respiratory diseases and associated risk factors, 1990-2019: Results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1066804. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1066804 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Luh J, Cronk R, Bartram J. Assessing Progress towards Public Health, Human Rights, and International Development Goals Using Frontier Analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0147663. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0147663 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Yu Y, Li H, Hu N-X, Wu X-H, Huang X-Y, Lin H-T, et al. Global burden and health inequality of nutritional deficiencies from 1990 to 2019. Front Nutr. 2024;11:1470713. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2024.1470713 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Chen W-Q, Zheng R-S, Zeng H-M. Bayesian age-period-cohort prediction of lung cancer incidence in China. Thorac Cancer. 2011;2(4):149–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1759-7714.2011.00062.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Riebler A, Held L. Projecting the future burden of cancer: Bayesian age-period-cohort analysis with integrated nested Laplace approximations. Biom J. 2017;59(3):531–49. doi: 10.1002/bimj.201500263 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Fosse E. Bayesian age–period–cohort models. Age, Period and Cohort Effects. Routledge. 2020. p. 142–75. doi: 10.4324/9780429056819-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Wang C, Wu Z, Lei L, Dong X, Cao W, Luo Z, et al. Geographic disparities in trends of thyroid cancer incidence and mortality from 1990 to 2019 and a projection to 2030 across income-classified countries and territories. J Glob Health. 2023;13:04108. doi: 10.7189/jogh.13.04108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tejiram S, Shupp JW. Sepsis in surgical patients: Burn sepsis. Surgery. 2024;175(4):1259–61. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2023.11.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Palackic A, Suman OE, Porter C, Murton AJ, Crandall CG, Rivas E. Rehabilitative Exercise Training for Burn Injury. Sports Med. 2021;51(12):2469–82. doi: 10.1007/s40279-021-01528-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Berecki-Gisolf J, Wah W, Walker-Bone K. Occupational injuries caused by fire and smoke in Victoria, Australia, 2003-2021: a descriptive study. Occup Environ Med. 2024;81(5):232–7. doi: 10.1136/oemed-2024-109428 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Cleland H, Fernando DT, Gabbe BJ. Trends in Victorian burn injuries 2008-2017. Burns. 2022;48(3):703–12. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2021.06.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Golshan A, Patel C, Hyder AA. A systematic review of the epidemiology of unintentional burn injuries in South Asia. J Public Health (Oxf). 2013;35(3):384–96. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fds102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wade E, Sebastian A. Unintended Consequences: A Case Study of a Toddler’s Accidental Burn Injury Caused by a Hair Crimper. J Forensic Nurs. 2024;20(3):214–6. doi: 10.1097/JFN.0000000000000487 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Olawoye OA, Isamah CP, Ademola SA, Iyun AO, Michael AI, Aderibigbe RO, et al. Changing Epidemiology and Outcome of Pediatric Thermal Burn Injury in South Western Nigeria. J Burn Care Res. 2024;45(2):404–9. doi: 10.1093/jbcr/irad161 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Lee CJ, Mahendraraj K, Houng A, Marano M, Petrone S, Lee R, et al. Pediatric Burns: A Single Institution Retrospective Review of Incidence, Etiology, and Outcomes in 2273 Burn Patients (1995-2013). J Burn Care Res. 2016;37(6):e579–85. doi: 10.1097/BCR.0000000000000362 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Balseven-Odabaşı A, Yıldırım MŞ, Akçan R, Yalçın SS, I Nce T, Tümer AR, et al. Dark side of customs: scalding burns in childhood due to use of traditional teacup and teapot, in Turkey. Int J Environ Health Res. 2024;34(3):1479–86. doi: 10.1080/09603123.2023.2221644 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Brembilla NC, Vuagnat H, Boehncke W-H, Krause K-H, Preynat-Seauve O. Adipose-Derived Stromal Cells for Chronic Wounds: Scientific Evidence and Roadmap Toward Clinical Practice. Stem Cells Translational Medicine. 2022;12(1):17–25. doi: 10.1093/stcltm/szac081 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kondo T, Tsuboi H, Nishiyama K, Takahashi G, Nishimura Y. Effects of rehabilitation treatments jointly considered by physiatrists and rehabilitation therapists in patients with severe burn injury. Burns. 2024;50(6):1621–31. doi: 10.1016/j.burns.2024.03.034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Schieffelers DR, Ru T, Dai H, Ye Z, van Breda E, Van Daele U, et al. Effects of early exercise training following severe burn injury: a randomized controlled trial. Burns Trauma. 2024;12:tkae005. doi: 10.1093/burnst/tkae005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Válik A, Harangozó K, Garami A, Juhász Z, Józsa G, Lőrincz A. Mid-Term Follow-Up Study of Children Undergoing Autologous Skin Transplantation for Burns. Life (Basel). 2023;13(3):762. doi: 10.3390/life13030762 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.McPhail SM, Wiseman J, Simons M, Kimble R, Tyack Z. Cost-effectiveness of scar management post-burn: a trial-based economic evaluation of three intervention models. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):18601. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-22488-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Sheckter CC, Brych S, Carrougher GJ, Wolf SE, Schneider JC, Gibran N, et al. Exploring “Return to Productivity” Among People Living With Burn Injury: A Burn Model System National Database Report. J Burn Care Res. 2021;42(6):1081–6. doi: 10.1093/jbcr/irab139 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Li Z, Cao X, Liu Z, Wu F, Lin C, Wang C-M. Therapeutic effect of mitochondrial transplantation on burn injury. Free Radic Biol Med. 2024;215:2–13. doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2024.02.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lo CH, Chong E, Akbarzadeh S, Brown WA, Cleland H. A systematic review: Current trends and take rates of cultured epithelial autografts in the treatment of patients with burn injuries. Wound Repair Regen. 2019;27(6):693–701. doi: 10.1111/wrr.12748 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.de Schrijver E, Bundo M, Ragettli MS, Sera F, Gasparrini A, Franco OH, et al. Nationwide Analysis of the Heat- and Cold-Related Mortality Trends in Switzerland between 1969 and 2017: The Role of Population Aging. Environ Health Perspect. 2022;130(3):37001. doi: 10.1289/EHP9835 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Pan H, Zhao Z, Deng Y, Zheng Z, Huang Y, Huang S, et al. The global, regional, and national early-onset colorectal cancer burden and trends from 1990 to 2019: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1896. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14274-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

David Greenhalgh

26 Mar 2025

Dear Dr. Huang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

There are significant issues pointed out by the reviewers that need to be addressed. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 10 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

David G. Greenhalgh, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

Self-funded research project of Health and Family Planning Commission of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region(Z20180240)

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

4. Please include a copy of Table 1 and 2, which you refer to in your text on page 5.

5. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set.

Note: spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments :

The reviewers have serious concerns about the paper. If you would like to address the concerns, please respond to the critiques.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled: Global, regional, national burden of injuries cause by fire, heat, and hot substances from 1990 to 2021. I do not have experience in statistical analysis and will leave that to the Editor and other reviewers sourced.

Statements such as this one are questionable and would need support from the surrounding literature “Burn injuries, is thought to be a chronic disease of the injury, typically result from contact with fire, heat, and hot substances”.

The authors state the following but only provide one reference despite stating studies: “Recent epidemiological studies on burn injury have also proliferated. In terms of burns injury, studies indicate that in 2019, the global economic burden attributable to burns amounted to USD 11.2 billion, accounting for 0.09% of the global Gross Domestic Product (GDP)7.

The manuscript requires review of syntax and grammar throughout as the flow is disjointed.

The manuscript states in the introduction that the study aims to estimate the overall GBD of burn injury using the GBD 2021, and seeks to better guide global public health policymakers in the field of burn injury. However, in the methods the aims state to describe the global burden of disease caused by injuries from fire, heat, and hot substances using data from the GBD 2021 database. Then in the discussion it states “This study explores the GBD attributed to injuries caused by hot, heat, and hot substances from 1990 to 2021, and forecasts from 2021 to 2030. Therefore, there is inconsistency in what the actual aim of the study is.

There are no limitations section in the discussion that discusses the limitations and the conclusion is limited.

Reviewer #2: Abstract

The conclusions and results sections overlap considerably, with no clear distinction between the two.

Main Text

The manuscript estimates the overall global burden of burn injury using GBD 2021 data and subsequently applies a Bayesian Age-Period-Cohort (BAPC) model to forecast the burden of burn injuries from 2021 to 2030. A major limitation is the absence of more recent data beyond 2021. The inclusion of data from 2021 to 2024 would significantly enhance the analysis, allowing a comparison between predicted and actual trends over this period.

Additionally, the introduction includes several references to therapeutic interventions (e.g., post-graft hyperbaric oxygen treatment) that are not directly relevant to the study's primary objective. This detracts from the focus and scientific coherence of the paper.

The excessive use of abbreviations and a large number of figures and data included in the supplementary material significantly impairs the readability of the manuscript.

I strongly recommend a thorough language review and editing of the manuscript to improve its clarity and academic rigor.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 May 20;20(5):e0324481. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324481.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Apr 2025

Dear editors and reviewers,

We appreciate the valuable comments of the editors and reviewers. Our Response to Reviewers are as follows.

Notes from the editor:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: Thank you very much for your thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your comments regarding the need for revisions in the manuscript format. We have made the necessary adjustments according to the title page and main text format provided by the editor. Once again, we are grateful for your suggestions on the manuscript format, which will help us better align with the style of PLOS ONE.

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: Self-funded research project of Health and Family Planning Commission of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region(Z20180240)Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. "If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Response: Thank you very much for your thorough review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We have revised the financial disclosure as suggested by the editor and added the statement "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." in lines 397-400. Once again, we are grateful for the editor's suggestions, which have helped to enhance the rigor of our research.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Response: Thank you very much for your thorough review and valuable feedback. We are truly grateful for your guidance regarding the need for an ethical statement. We have removed the ethical statement that was placed after the main text and have instead supplemented the Materials and methods section with the ethical statement for our study in lines 88-92. Once again, we extend our sincere thanks for the editor’s insightful suggestions.

4. Please include a copy of Table 1 and 2, which you refer to in your text on page 5.

Response: We thank the editor for carefully reviewing our work. We will submit copies of Table 1 and Table 2 along with the revised manuscript. Once again, we express our sincere gratitude for the editor's valuable comments!

5. Please remove all personal information, ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Note: spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file. Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long.

Response: Thank you very much for your thorough review and insightful comments. Our study does not involve any personal information of participants. All data used in this study are sourced from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021 (GBD 2021) database, which is a publicly available and open-access database. All the data utilized in our research can be freely and publicly downloaded from the website [Global Burden of Disease Study 2021 (GBD 2021) Data Resources] (https://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-2021).

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Response: Thank you very much for your meticulous observation and valuable suggestions. We have revised the Supporting information description and updated the citation in lines 555-576 according to the format you provided. Once again, we sincerely appreciate your insightful comments.

Reviewer #1

1. Statements such as this one are questionable and would need support from the surrounding literature “Burn injuries, is thought to be a chronic disease of the injury, typically result from contact with fire, heat, and hot substances”.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. After carefully re-reading the relevant papers, we realized that our original statement was problematic, for which we sincerely apologize. Therefore, we have revised the original statement to “Burn injuries are inherently acute conditions; however, in certain circumstances, the long-term sequelae of burn injuries may exhibit characteristics akin to those of chronic diseases,” based on the literature, and added the references (lines 36-38). Once again, we express our sincere gratitude for the crucial suggestions from the reviewer, which have enhanced the scientific rigor of our study.

2. The authors state the following but only provide one reference despite stating studies: “Recent epidemiological studies on burn injury have also proliferated. In terms of burns injury, studies indicate that in 2019, the global economic burden attributable to burns amounted to USD 11.2 billion, accounting for 0.09% of the global Gross Domestic Product (GDP)7.

Response: Thank you very much for your meticulous observation and critical comments. Upon our review, we realized that “studies” should be “study” in this context, and we have reflected deeply on this mistake. Accordingly, we have made the necessary revisions in lines 46-48 of the manuscript: “A recent epidemiological study indicates that in 2019, the global economic burden attributable to burns amounted to USD 11.2 billion, accounting for 0.09% of the global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) [6].” Once again, we sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestions.

3. The manuscript requires review of syntax and grammar throughout as the flow is disjointed.

Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to read our manuscript. After a careful re-examination, we have indeed found several linguistic issues. We have made every effort to revise the wording and grammar. Should there still be any oversights, please do point them out. We truly appreciate your valuable feedback!

4. The manuscript states in the introduction that the study aims to estimate the overall GBD of burn injury using the GBD 2021, and seeks to better guide global public health policymakers in the field of burn injury. However, in the methods the aims state to describe the global burden of disease caused by injuries from fire, heat, and hot substances using data from the GBD 2021 database. Then in the discussion it states “This study explores the GBD attributed to injuries caused by hot, heat, and hot substances from 1990 to 2021, and forecasts from 2021 to 2030. Therefore, there is inconsistency in what the actual aim of the study is.

Response: Thank you very much for your critical comments. After our review, we have indeed found that there were several confusing statements regarding the study aims throughout the manuscript, for which we have conducted a self-reflection. Therefore, we have retained only the statement of the study aims in lines 65-71 of the Introduction, and removed or streamlined the rest. Once again, we sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestions, which have enhanced the scientific rigor of our study.

5. There are no limitations section in the discussion that discusses the limitations and the conclusion is limited.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions! Regarding the limitations section of the manuscript, which can be found in lines 374-381 of the revised manuscript. As for the issues in the conclusion, we have conducted a profound self-reflection and have rewritten the conclusion in lines 383-389. Once again, we sincerely appreciate your insightful comments, which have greatly enhanced the rigor of our manuscript.

Reviewer #2

1. The conclusions and results sections overlap considerably, with no clear distinction between the two.

Response: Thank you very much for the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our study. We have carefully revised the results and conclusion sections in the abstract and the main text to address the repetition and other oversights. The revisions can be found in lines 24-31 and 383-389. Thank you again for your insightful feedback.

2. The manuscript estimates the overall global burden of burn injury using GBD 2021 data and subsequently applies a Bayesian Age-Period-Cohort (BAPC) model to forecast the burden of burn injuries from 2021 to 2030. A major limitation is the absence of more recent data beyond 2021. The inclusion of data from 2021 to 2024 would significantly enhance the analysis, allowing a comparison between predicted and actual trends over this period.

Response: Thank you very much for your critical comments. The latest version of the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) database is the 2021 edition, which is updated every two years. Therefore, the most recent burn injuries burden data available are from 1990 to 2021. In our study the latest and most complete burden of disease data on burns from the GBD has been used.

3. Additionally, the introduction includes several references to therapeutic interventions (e.g., post-graft hyperbaric oxygen treatment) that are not directly relevant to the study's primary objective. This detracts from the focus and scientific coherence of the paper.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. Regarding the overemphasis on burn injuries interventions and treatment methods, as well as the excessive references cited in this area, which you pointed out, we have reflected on this issue and agree with your observation. Therefore, we have streamlined the introduction of burn injuries treatment methods (lines 41-44) to better align the study with its core focus. Once again, we sincerely appreciate your insightful comments, which have significantly enhanced the scientific rigor of our manuscript.

4. The excessive use of abbreviations and a large number of figures and data included in the supplementary material significantly impairs the readability of the manuscript.

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. Upon reflection, we have realized that the excessive number of tables and figures in our Supporting information did indeed affect readability. Therefore, we have removed the redundant Supporting information 3 and presented all necessary Supporting information in a standardized format, which has significantly improved readability. Once again, we sincerely appreciate your comments, which have greatly enhanced the readability of our manuscript.

5. I strongly recommend a thorough language review and editing of the manuscript to improve its clarity and academic rigor.

Response: Thank you very much for taking the time to read our manuscript. After a careful re-examination, we have indeed found some linguistic issues. We have made every effort to revise the wording and grammar. Should there still be any oversights, please do point them out. We truly appreciate your valuable feedback!

We thank the editors and reviewers for their valuable review time and constructive comments. We have improved the manuscript on an item-by-item basis according to the feedback. If there are still any adjustments that need to be corrected, we would be grateful for further corrections.

Shi Huang

Affiliated Wuming Hospital of Guangxi Medical University

huangshiwuming@163.com

Attachment

Submitted filename: RTR.docx

pone.0324481.s007.docx (20.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

David Greenhalgh

28 Apr 2025

Global, regional, national burden of injuries caused by fire, heat, and hot substances from 1990 to 2021

PONE-D-25-06429R1

Dear Dr. Huang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

David G. Greenhalgh, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Accept

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for allowing me to review once again the manuscript entitled: Global, regional, national burden of injuries caused by fire, heat, and hot substances from 1990 to 2021. Thank you for taking the time to addressing the previous comments accordingly. The manuscript reads better after the revisions were addressed.

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed my comments, and I recommend this manuscript for publication

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

David Greenhalgh

PONE-D-25-06429R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Huang,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. David G. Greenhalgh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Age-Standardized Rate of injuries caused by fire, heat and hot substances in 204 countries with varying Social-Demographic Index globally in 2021.

    A. is for the Age-Standardized Rate of Incidence; B. is for the Age-Standardized Rate of Prevalence; C. is for the Age-Standardized Rate of Death; D. is for the Age-Standardized Rate of Disability-Adjusted Life Years. (E) The Age-Standardized Rate of Years of Life Lost; F. is for the Age-Standardized Rate of Years Lived with Disability.

    (PDF)

    pone.0324481.s001.pdf (4.6MB, pdf)
    S1 File. Formulas of disease burden indicators.

    Formulas of Age-Standardized Rate, Estimated Annual Percentage Change, Frontier Analysis, and Bayesian Age - Period - Cohort model.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0324481.s002.docx (25.7KB, docx)
    S2 File. The burden of injuries caused by fire, heat and hot substances in female and male across 22 GBD regions.

    The burden of Disability-Adjusted Life Years, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived with Disability, Incidence, Death, and Prevalence of burn in male and female.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0324481.s003.xlsx (49KB, xlsx)
    S3 File. Frontier Analysis: Countries with high potential for improvement in the burden of injuries caused by fire, heat, and hot substances in 2021.

    The burden of Disability-Adjusted Life Years, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived with Disability, Incidence, Death, and Prevalence of burn in high potential for improvement.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0324481.s004.xlsx (30KB, xlsx)
    S4 File. The burden forecast of injuries caused by fire, heat, and hot substances for 2021–2030.

    The forecast of Prevalence, Death, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years Numbers as well as Age-Standardized Rates for injuries caused by fire, heat, and hot substances in males and females from 2021 to 2030.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0324481.s005.xlsx (45.3KB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: RTR.docx

    pone.0324481.s007.docx (20.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    This study utilized data resources from the Global Burden of Disease database(https://ghdx.healthdata.org/gbd-2021), provided by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES