↓ Skip to main content

Clinical signs to identify late-onset sepsis in preterm infants

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Pediatrics, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Clinical signs to identify late-onset sepsis in preterm infants
Published in
European Journal of Pediatrics, December 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00431-012-1910-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jolita Bekhof, Johannes B. Reitsma, Joke H. Kok, Irma H. L. M. Van Straaten

Abstract

Late-onset neonatal sepsis (LOS) in preterm infants is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in preterm infants. Since presenting symptoms may be non-specific and subtle, early and correct diagnosis is challenging. We aimed to develop a nomogram based on clinical signs, to assess the likelihood of LOS in preterms with suspected infection without the use of laboratory investigations. We performed a prospective cohort study in 142 preterm infants <34 weeks admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit with suspected infection. During 187 episodes, 21 clinical signs were assessed. LOS was defined as blood culture-proven and/or clinical sepsis, occurring after 3 days of age. Logistic regression was used to develop a nomogram to estimate the probability of LOS being present in individual patients. LOS was found in 48 % of 187 suspected episodes. Clinical signs associated with LOS were: increased respiratory support (odds ratio (OR) 3.6; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.9-7.1), capillary refill (OR 2.2; 95 %CI 1.1-4.5), grey skin (OR 2.7; 95 %CI 1.4-5.5) and central venous catheter (OR 4.6; 95 %CI 2.2-10.0) (area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.828; 95 %CI 0.764-0.892).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 18%
Student > Postgraduate 12 12%
Other 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Other 22 22%
Unknown 21 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 28 27%
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 08 April 2021.
All research outputs
#8,059,753
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Pediatrics
#1,646
of 4,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,655
of 294,702 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Pediatrics
#12
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,524 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 294,702 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 42 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 69% of its contemporaries.