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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Use of explicit ICD9-CM codes to identify adult severe sepsis: impacts on epidemiological estimates
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-016-1497-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
C. Bouza, T. Lopez-Cuadrado, J. M. Amate-Blanco |
| Abstract |
Severe sepsis is a challenge for healthcare systems, and epidemiological studies are essential to assess its burden and trends. However, there is no consensus on which coding strategy should be used to reliably identify severe sepsis. This study assesses the use of explicit codes to define severe sepsis and the impacts of this on the incidence and in-hospital mortality rates. We examined episodes of severe sepsis in adults aged ≥18 years registered in the 2006-2011 national hospital discharge database, identified in an exclusive manner by two ICD-9-CM coding strategies: (1) those assigned explicit ICD-9-CM codes (995.92, 785.52); and (2) those assigned combined ICD-9-CM infection and organ dysfunction codes according to modified Martin criteria. The coding strategies were compared in terms of the populations they defined and their relative implementation. Trends were assessed using Joinpoint regression models and expressed as annual percentage change (APC). Of 222 846 episodes of severe sepsis identified, 138 517 (62.2 %) were assigned explicit codes and 84 329 (37.8 %) combination codes; incidence rates were 60.6 and 36.9 cases per 100 000 inhabitants, respectively. Despite similar demographic characteristics, cases identified by explicit codes involved fewer comorbidities, fewer registered pathogens, greater extent of organ dysfunction (two or more organs affected in 60 % versus 26 % of cases) and higher in-hospital mortality (54.5 % versus 29 %; risk ratio 1.86, 95 % CI 1.83, 1.88). Between 2006 and 2011, explicit codes were increasingly implemented. Standardised incidence rates in this cohort increased over time with an APC of 12.3 % (95 % CI 4.4, 20.8); in the combination code cohort, rates increased by 3.8 % (95 % CI 1.3, 6.3). A decreasing trend in mortality was observed in both cohorts though the APC was -8.1 % (95 % CI -10.4, -5.7) in the combination code cohort and -3.5 % (95 % CI -3.9, -3.2) in the explicit code cohort. Our findings suggest greater and increasing use of explicit codes for adult severe sepsis in Spain. This trend will have substantial impacts on epidemiological estimates, because these codes capture cases featuring greater organ dysfunction and in-hospital mortality. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 57 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 11 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 18 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 31% |
| Unspecified | 11 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 19 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 07 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,000,149
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,819
of 6,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,114
of 321,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#55
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,065 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 321,456 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.