↓ Skip to main content

Severity Scores in Emergency Department Patients With Presumed Infection

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care Medicine, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
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.
Title
Severity Scores in Emergency Department Patients With Presumed Infection
Published in
Critical Care Medicine, March 2016
DOI 10.1097/ccm.0000000000001427
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julian M. Williams, Jaimi H. Greenslade, Kevin Chu, Anthony F. T. Brown, Jeffrey Lipman

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to 1) validate a number of severity of illness scores in a large cohort of emergency department patients admitted with presumed infection and 2) compare the performance of scores in patient subgroups with increasing mortality: infection without systemic inflammatory response syndrome, sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock. Prospective, observational study. Adult emergency department in a metropolitan tertiary, university-affiliated hospital. Emergency department patients admitted with presumed infection. None. Consecutive emergency department patients admitted with presumed infection were identified over 160 weeks in two periods between 2007 and 2011. Clinical and laboratory data sufficient to calculate Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis score, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, and the Severe Sepsis Score were entered into a database. Model discrimination was quantified using area under the receiver operating curve. Calibration was assessed using visual plots, Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics, and linear regressions of observed and predicted values. A total of 8,871 patients were enrolled with 30-day mortality of 3.7%. Area under the receiver operating curve values for the entire cohort were: Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis score of 0.92, Simplified Acute Physiology Score II and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores of 0.90, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 0.86, and Severe Sepsis Score of 0.82. Discrimination decreased in subgroups with greater mortality for each score. All scores overestimated mortality, but closest concordance between predicted and observed mortality was seen with Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis score. The decrease in area under the receiver operating curve seen in subgroups with increasing mortality may explain some variation in results seen in previous validation studies. Scores developed in intensive care settings overestimated mortality in the emergency department. Our results underscore the importance of employing predictive models developed in similar patient populations. The Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis score outperformed more complex predictive models and would be the most appropriate scoring system for use in similar emergency department populations with a wide spectrum of mortality risk.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Other 6 10%
Student > Master 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 52%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 13 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 14 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,875,825
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care Medicine
#4,147
of 9,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,974
of 312,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care Medicine
#62
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,342 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 312,602 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.