| Title |
CURB-65 score predicted mortality in community-acquired pneumonia better than IDSA/ATS minor criteria in a low-mortality-rate setting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10096-012-1693-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Q. Guo, H.-Y. Li, Y.-P. Zhou, M. Li, X.-K. Chen, H. Liu, H.-L. Peng, H.-Q. Yu, X. Chen, N. Liu, L.-H. Liang, Q.-Z. Zhao, M. Jiang |
| Abstract |
The CURB-65 scoring system performs well at identifying patients with pneumonia who have a low risk of death. Whether it predicts mortality in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) better than the 2007 Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA)/American Thoracic Society (ATS) minor criteria in low-mortality-rate settings is not clear. The purpose of this study was to determine the hypothesis.A total of 1,230 adult inpatients admitted to our hospital from 2005 to 2009 for CAP were reviewed retrospectively.The hospital mortality was 1.3 %. Percentage mortality increased significantly with CURB-65 score and the increasing number of IDSA/ATS minor criteria present. The number of CURB-65 criteria or IDSA/ATS minor criteria present had significant increased odds ratios for mortality of 7.547 and 2.711, respectively. The sensitivities of a CURB-65 score of ≥ 3 and the presence of ≥ 3 minor criteria in predicting mortality was 25 % and 37.5 %, which increased to 75 % and 62.5 %, while the cut-off values reduced to ≥ 2 criteria, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for CURB-65 was greater than the corresponding area for IDSA/ATS minor criteria in predicting hospital mortality (0.915 vs. 0.805, p = 0.0091).CURB-65 score predicted hospital mortality better than IDSA/ATS minor criteria, and a CURB-65 score of ≥ 2 or the presence of ≥ 2 minor criteria might be more valuable cut-off values for "severe" CAP in a low-mortality-rate setting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Researcher | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 23% |
| Unknown | 3 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 65% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 12% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 3 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 April 2013.
All research outputs
#18,333,600
of 22,703,044 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#2,158
of 2,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,719
of 163,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#22
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,703,044 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,768 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 163,898 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.