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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
N-terminal pro-B-type Natriuretic Peptides’ Prognostic Utility Is Overestimated in Meta-analyses Using Study-specific Optimal Diagnostic Thresholds
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Anesthesiology, August 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1097/aln.0000000000000728 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Danielle Potgieter, Dale Simmers, Lisa Ryan, Bruce M. Biccard, Giovanna A. Lurati-Buse, Daniela M. Cardinale, Carol P. W. Chong, Miloslaw Cnotliwy, Sylvia I. Farzi, Radmilo J. Jankovic, Wen Kwang Lim, Elisabeth Mahla, Ramaswamy Manikandan, Anna Oscarsson, Michael P. Phy, Sriram Rajagopalan, William J. Van Gaal, Marek Waliszek, Reitze N. Rodseth |
| Abstract |
N-terminal fragment B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) prognostic utility is commonly determined post hoc by identifying a single optimal discrimination threshold tailored to the individual study population. The authors aimed to determine how using these study-specific post hoc thresholds impacts meta-analysis results. The authors conducted a systematic review of studies reporting the ability of preoperative NT-proBNP measurements to predict the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days after noncardiac surgery. Individual patient-level data NT-proBNP thresholds were determined using two different methodologies. First, a single combined NT-proBNP threshold was determined for the entire cohort of patients, and a meta-analysis conducted using this single threshold. Second, study-specific thresholds were determined for each individual study, with meta-analysis being conducted using these study-specific thresholds. The authors obtained individual patient data from 14 studies (n = 2,196). Using a single NT-proBNP cohort threshold, the odds ratio (OR) associated with an increased NT-proBNP measurement was 3.43 (95% CI, 2.08 to 5.64). Using individual study-specific thresholds, the OR associated with an increased NT-proBNP measurement was 6.45 (95% CI, 3.98 to 10.46). In smaller studies (<100 patients) a single cohort threshold was associated with an OR of 5.4 (95% CI, 2.27 to 12.84) as compared with an OR of 14.38 (95% CI, 6.08 to 34.01) for study-specific thresholds. Post hoc identification of study-specific prognostic biomarker thresholds artificially maximizes biomarker predictive power, resulting in an amplification or overestimation during meta-analysis of these results. This effect is accentuated in small studies. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 22 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 17% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 30% |
| Unknown | 1 | 4% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 52% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 4 | 17% |
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 21 August 2015.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesiology
#5,427
of 6,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#165,176
of 276,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesiology
#65
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 276,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.