↓ Skip to main content

Comparing Time-Fixed Mortality Prediction Models and Their Effect on ICU Performance Metrics Using the Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care Medicine, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparing Time-Fixed Mortality Prediction Models and Their Effect on ICU Performance Metrics Using the Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3
Published in
Critical Care Medicine, November 2016
DOI 10.1097/ccm.0000000000001877
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lars Engerström, Andrew A. Kramer, Thomas Nolin, Folke Sjöberg, Göran Karlström, Mats Fredrikson, Sten M. Walther

Abstract

To examine ICU performance based on the Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 using 30-day, 90-day, or 180-day mortality as outcome measures and compare results with 30-day mortality as reference. Retrospective cohort study of ICU admissions from 2010 to 2014. Sixty-three Swedish ICUs that submitted data to the Swedish Intensive Care Registry. The development cohort was first admissions to ICU during 2011-2012 (n = 53,546), and the validation cohort was first admissions to ICU during 2013-2014 (n = 57,729). None. Logistic regression was used to develop predictive models based on a first level recalibration of the original Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 model but with 30-day, 90-day, or 180-day mortality as measures of outcome. Discrimination and calibration were excellent for the development dataset. Validation in the more recent 2013-2014 database showed good discrimination (C-statistic: 0.85, 0.84, and 0.83 for the 30-, 90-, and 180-d models, respectively), and good calibration (standardized mortality ratio: 0.99, 0.99, and 1.00; Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit H-statistic: 66.4, 63.7, and 81.4 for the 30-, 90-, and 180-d models, respectively). There were modest changes in an ICU's standardized mortality ratio grouping (< 1.00, not significant, > 1.00) when follow-up was extended from 30 to 90 days and 180 days, respectively; about 11-13% of all ICUs. The recalibrated Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 hospital outcome prediction model performed well on long-term outcomes. Evaluation of ICU performance using standardized mortality ratio was only modestly sensitive to the follow-up time. Our results suggest that 30-day mortality may be a good benchmark of ICU performance. However, the duration of follow-up must balance between what is most relevant for patients, most affected by ICU care, least affected by administrative policies and practically feasible for caregivers.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 14 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 43%
Computer Science 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 16 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2016.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care Medicine
#7,139
of 9,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,512
of 317,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care Medicine
#96
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,812 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.