↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of community-acquired sepsis by PIRO system in the emergency department

Overview of attention for article published in Internal and Emergency Medicine, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of community-acquired sepsis by PIRO system in the emergency department
Published in
Internal and Emergency Medicine, June 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11739-013-0969-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yun-Xia Chen, Chun-Sheng Li

Abstract

The predisposition, infection/insult, response, and organ dysfunction (PIRO) staging system for septic patients allows grouping of heterogeneous patients into homogeneous subgroups. The purposes of this single-center, prospective, observational cohort study were to create a PIRO system for patients with community-acquired sepsis (CAS) presenting to the emergency department (ED) and assess its prognostic and stratification capabilities. Septic patients were enrolled and allocated to derivation (n = 831) or validation (n = 860) cohorts according to their enrollment dates. The derivation cohort was used to identify independent predictors of mortality and create a PIRO system by binary logistic regression analysis, and the prognostic performance of PIRO was investigated in the validation cohort by receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve. Ten independent predictors of 28-day mortality were identified. The PIRO system combined the components of predisposition (age, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypoalbuminemia), infection (central nervous system infection), response (temperature, procalcitonin), and organ dysfunction (brain natriuretic peptide, troponin I, mean arterial pressure, Glasgow coma scale score). The area under the ROC of PIRO was 0.833 for the derivation cohort and 0.813 for the validation cohort. There was a stepwise increase in 28-day mortality with increasing PIRO score and the differences between the low- (PIRO 0-10), intermediate- (11-20), and high- (>20) risk groups were very significant in both cohorts (p < 0.01). The present study demonstrates that this PIRO system is valuable for prognosis and risk stratification in patients with CAS in the ED.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Other 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 52%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Engineering 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 16 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 31 October 2017.
All research outputs
#6,764,662
of 22,712,476 outputs
Outputs from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#327
of 931 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,448
of 178,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#6
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,712,476 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 931 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
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 178,120 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.