↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of subarachnoid hemorrhage using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample: the NIS-SAH Severity Score and Outcome Measure.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurosurgery, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
66 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.
Article details
Title
Analysis of subarachnoid hemorrhage using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample: the NIS-SAH Severity Score and Outcome Measure.
Published in
Journal of Neurosurgery, June 2014
DOI 10.3171/2014.4.jns131100
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Object Studies using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), a large ICD-9-based (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision) administrative database, to analyze aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) have been limited by an inability to control for SAH severity and the use of unverified outcome measures. To address these limitations, the authors developed and validated a surrogate marker for SAH severity, the NIS-SAH Severity Score (NIS-SSS; akin to Hunt and Hess [HH] grade), and a dichotomous measure of SAH outcome, the NIS-SAH Outcome Measure (NIS-SOM; akin to modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score). Methods Three separate and distinct patient cohorts were used to define and then validate the NIS-SSS and NIS-SOM. A cohort (n = 148,958, the "model population") derived from the 1998-2009 NIS was used for developing the NIS-SSS and NIS-SOM models. Diagnoses most likely reflective of SAH severity were entered into a regression model predicting poor outcome; model coefficients of significant factors were used to generate the NIS-SSS. Nationwide Inpatient Sample codes most likely to reflect a poor outcome (for example, discharge disposition, tracheostomy) were used to create the NIS-SOM. Data from 716 patients with SAH (the "validation population") treated at the authors' institution were used to validate the NIS-SSS and NIS-SOM against HH grade and mRS score, respectively. Lastly, 147,395 patients (the "assessment population") from the 1998-2009 NIS, independent of the model population, were used to assess performance of the NIS-SSS in predicting outcome. The ability of the NIS-SSS to predict outcome was compared with other common measures of disease severity (All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group [APR-DRG], All Payer Severity-adjusted DRG [APS-DRG], and DRG). Results The NIS-SSS significantly correlated with HH grade, and there was no statistical difference between the abilities of the NIS-SSS and HH grade to predict mRS-based outcomes. As compared with the APR-DRG, APSDRG, and DRG, the NIS-SSS was more accurate in predicting SAH outcome (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.69, 0.71, 0.71, and 0.79, respectively). A strong correlation between NIS-SOM and mRS was found, with an agreement and kappa statistic of 85% and 0.63, respectively, when poor outcome was defined by an mRS score > 2 and 95% and 0.84 when poor outcome was defined by an mRS score > 3. Conclusions Data in this study indicate that in the analysis of NIS data sets, the NIS-SSS is a valid measure of SAH severity that outperforms previous measures of disease severity and that the NIS-SOM is a valid measure of SAH outcome. It is critically important that outcomes research in SAH using administrative data sets incorporate the NIS-SSS and NIS-SOM to adjust for neurology-specific disease severity.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Japan 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 60 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 9 14%
Researcher 9 14%
Other 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 18 27%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 47%
Neuroscience 7 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 17 26%
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 23 June 2014.
All research outputs
#28,639,288
of 34,410,315 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurosurgery
#8,060
of 8,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,655
of 275,790 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurosurgery
#48
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,315 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,770 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 275,790 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.