| Title |
The DENOVA score efficiently identifies patients with monomicrobial Enterococcus faecalis bacteremia where echocardiography is not necessary
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Infection, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s15010-018-1208-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andreas Berge, Andrea Krantz, Helena Östlund, Pontus Nauclér, Magnus Rasmussen |
| Abstract |
Enterococcal bacteremia can be complicated by infective endocarditis (IE) and when suspected, transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) should be performed. The previously published NOVA score can identify patients with enterococcal bacteremia at risk for IE and we aimed to improve the score. Factors associated with IE were studied retrospectively in a population-based cohort of patients with monomicrobial Enterococcus faecalis bacteremia (MEFsB). Factors associated with IE in multivariable analysis were included in a new score system which was compared to the NOVA score and validated in a cohort of patients with MEFsB from another region. Among 397 episodes of MEFsB, 44 episodes with IE were compared to those without IE. Long Duration of symptoms (≥ 7 days) and Embolization were associated with IE in the multivariate analysis and hence were added to the NOVA variables (Number of positive cultures, Origin of infection unknown, Valve disease, and Auscultation of murmur) to generate a novel score; DENOVA. The area under the curve in ROC analyses was higher for DENOVA (0.95) compared to NOVA (0.91) (p = 0.001). With a cutoff at ≥ 3 positive variables the DENOVA score has a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 83% which is superior to the NOVA score (specificity 29%). The DENOVA score was applied to the validation cohort (26 IE episodes and 256 non-IE episodes) and the resulting sensitivity was 100% and the specificity was 85% compared to 35% for NOVA. The DENOVA score is a useful tool to identify patients with MEFsB where TEE is not needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 | 3 | 25% |
| India | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 75% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 70 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Researcher | 9 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 16% |
| Unknown | 26 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 50% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 05 July 2023.
All research outputs
#5,100,649
of 25,085,000 outputs
Outputs from Infection
#277
of 1,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,341
of 341,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Infection
#5
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,085,000 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 341,275 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 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.