↓ Skip to main content

Prediction of invasive candidal infection in critically ill patients with severeacute pancreatitis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Prediction of invasive candidal infection in critically ill patients with severeacute pancreatitis
Published in
Critical Care, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/cc12569
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison M Hall, Lee AL Poole, Bryan Renton, Alexa Wozniak, Michael Fisher, Timothy Neal, Christopher M Halloran, Trevor Cox, Peter A Hampshire

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Patients with severe acute pancreatitis are at risk of candidal infections carrying the potential risk of an increase in mortality. Since early diagnosis is problematic, several clinical risk scores have been developed to identify patients at risk. Such patients may benefit from prophylactic antifungal therapy while those patients who have a low risk of infection may not benefit and may be harmed. The aim of this study was to assess the validity and discrimination of existing risk scores for invasive candidal infections in patients with severe acute pancreatitis. METHODS: Patients admitted with severe acute pancreatitis to the intensive care unit were analysed. Outcomes and risk factors of admissions with and without candidal infection were compared. Accuracy and discrimination of three existing risk scores for the development of invasive candidal infection (Candida score, Candida Colonisation Index Score and the Invasive Candidiasis Score) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 101 patients were identified from 2003 to 2011 and 18 (17.8%) of these developed candidal infection. Thirty patients died, giving an overall hospital mortality of 29.7%. Hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients with candidal infection (55.6% compared to 24.1%, P = 0.02). Candida colonisation was associated with subsequent candidal infection on multivariate analysis. The Candida Colonisation Index Score was the most accurate test, with specificity of 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68 to 0.88), sensitivity of 0.67 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.87), negative predictive value of 0.91 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.97) and a positive likelihood ratio of 3.2 (95% CI 1.9 to 5.5). The Candida Colonisation Index Score showed the best discrimination with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.79 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.87). CONCLUSIONS: In this study the Candida Colonisation Index Score was the most accurate and discriminative test at identifying which patients with severe acute pancreatitis are at risk of developing candidal infection. However its low sensitivity may limit its clinical usefulness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 4%
United States 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 49 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 17%
Other 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 17 32%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 64%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 6 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 21 March 2013.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,396
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,763
of 222,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#76
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 222,521 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 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 50% of its contemporaries.