↓ Skip to main content

Using Risk Prediction Tools in Survivors of In-hospital Cardiac Arrest

Overview of attention for article published in Current Cardiology Reports, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Using Risk Prediction Tools in Survivors of In-hospital Cardiac Arrest
Published in
Current Cardiology Reports, January 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11886-013-0457-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Saket Girotra, Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, Paul S. Chan

Abstract

In-hospital cardiac arrests are common and associated with poor outcomes. Predicting the likelihood of favorable neurological survival following resuscitation from an in-hospital cardiac arrest could provide important information for physicians and families. In this article, we review the literature regarding predictors of survival following in-hospital cardiac arrest. Specifically, we describe the Cardiac Arrest Survival Postresuscitation In-hospital (CASPRI) score that was recently developed and validated using data from the Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation registry. The CASPRI score includes 11 predictor variables: age, initial cardiac arrest rhythm, defibrillation time, baseline neurological status, duration of resuscitation, mechanical ventilation, renal insufficiency, hepatic insufficiency, sepsis, malignancy, and hypotension. The score is simple to use at the bedside, has excellent discrimination and calibration, and provides robust estimates of the probability of favorable neurological survival after an in-hospital cardiac arrest. Thus, CASPRI may be valuable in establishing expectations by physicians and families in the critical period after these high-risk events.

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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 42 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Researcher 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 13 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Engineering 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 15 34%
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 01 January 2015.
All research outputs
#6,403,829
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#274
of 995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,397
of 306,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#3
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 995 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 306,987 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.