↓ Skip to main content

Interobserver Agreement of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Criteria for Classifying Infections in Critically Ill Patients*

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care Medicine, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
166 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
Interobserver Agreement of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Criteria for Classifying Infections in Critically Ill Patients*
Published in
Critical Care Medicine, October 2013
DOI 10.1097/ccm.0b013e3182923712
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter M. C. Klein Klouwenberg, David S. Y. Ong, Lieuwe D. J. Bos, Friso M. de Beer, Roosmarijn T. M. van Hooijdonk, Mischa A. Huson, Marleen Straat, Lonneke A. van Vught, Luuk Wieske, Janneke Horn, Marcus J. Schultz, Tom van der Poll, Marc J. M. Bonten, Olaf L. Cremer

Abstract

Correct classification of the source of infection is important in observational and interventional studies of sepsis. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria are most commonly used for this purpose, but the robustness of these definitions in critically ill patients is not known. We hypothesized that in a mixed ICU population, the performance of these criteria would be generally reduced and would vary among diagnostic subgroups.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Unknown 105 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 28%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Other 21 20%
Unknown 16 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 62%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 7%
Engineering 3 3%
Computer Science 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 17 16%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 August 2018.
All research outputs
#5,240,151
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care Medicine
#3,293
of 9,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,930
of 219,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care Medicine
#47
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 9,341 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 64% 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 219,852 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 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 62% of its contemporaries.