| Title |
Why the C-statistic is not informative to evaluate early warning scores and what metrics to use
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-015-0999-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Santiago Romero-Brufau, Jeanne M. Huddleston, Gabriel J. Escobar, Mark Liebow |
| Abstract |
Metrics typically used to report the performance of an early warning score (EWS), such as the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve or C-statistic, are not useful for pre-implementation analyses. Because physiological deterioration has an extremely low prevalence of 0.02 per patient-day, these metrics can be misleading. We discuss the statistical reasoning behind this statement and present a novel alternative metric more adequate to operationalize an EWS. We suggest that pre-implementation evaluation of EWSs should include at least two metrics: sensitivity; and either the positive predictive value, number needed to evaluate, or estimated rate of alerts. We also argue the importance of reporting each individual cutoff value. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 Kingdom | 4 | 22% |
| United States | 2 | 11% |
| Puerto Rico | 2 | 11% |
| Greece | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 6% |
| France | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 39% |
| Members of the public | 5 | 28% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 28% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Sri Lanka | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 122 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 22 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 11% |
| Professor | 13 | 10% |
| Other | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 31 | 24% |
| Unknown | 21 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 43% |
| Computer Science | 10 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
| Engineering | 7 | 6% |
| Mathematics | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 13% |
| Unknown | 25 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 March 2019.
All research outputs
#3,373,669
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,698
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,360
of 395,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#221
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 395,421 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.