↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of the predictive indices for candidemia in an adult intensive care unit

Overview of attention for article published in Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Evaluation of the predictive indices for candidemia in an adult intensive care unit
Published in
Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, January 2015
DOI 10.1590/0037-8682-0292-2014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gilberto Gambero Gaspar, Mayra Gonçalves Menegueti, Maria Auxiliadora-Martins, Anibal Basile-Filho, Roberto Martinez

Abstract

To evaluate predictive indices for candidemia in an adult intensive care unit (ICU) and to propose a new index. A prospective cohort study was conducted between January 2011 and December 2012. This study was performed in an ICU in a tertiary care hospital at a public university and included 114 patients staying in the adult ICU for at least 48 hours. The association of patient variables with candidemia was analyzed. There were 18 (15.8%) proven cases of candidemia and 96 (84.2%) cases without candidemia. Univariate analysis revealed the following risk factors: parenteral nutrition, severe sepsis, surgical procedure, dialysis, pancreatitis, acute renal failure, and an APACHE II score higher than 20. For the Candida score index, the odds ratio was 8.50 (95% CI, 2.57 to 28.09); the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 0.78, 0.71, 0.33, and 0.94, respectively. With respect to the clinical predictor index, the odds ratio was 9.45 (95%CI, 2.06 to 43.39); the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 0.89, 0.54, 0.27, and 0.96, respectively. The proposed candidemia index cutoff was 8.5; the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 0.77, 0.70, 0.33, and 0.94, respectively. The Candida score and clinical predictor index excluded candidemia satisfactorily. The effectiveness of the candidemia index was comparable to that of the Candida score.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 3%
Unknown 62 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 19%
Student > Bachelor 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 5%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 16 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 19 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 April 2015.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
#953
of 1,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#306,548
of 359,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
#26
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,193 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 359,538 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.