↓ Skip to main content

Multilevel competing risks in the evaluation of nosocomial infections: time to move on from proportional hazards and even from hazards altogether

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 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
Multilevel competing risks in the evaluation of nosocomial infections: time to move on from proportional hazards and even from hazards altogether
Published in
Critical Care, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/cc13892
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alvaro Muñoz, Nicole Mongilardi, William Checkley

Abstract

A competing risk is an event (for example, death in the ICU) that hinders the occurrence of an event of interest (for example, nosocomial infection in the ICU) and it is a common issue in many critical care studies. Not accounting for a competing event may affect how results related to a primary event of interest are interpreted. In the previous issue of Critical Care, Wolkewitz and colleagues extended traditional models for competing risks to include random effects as a means to quantify heterogeneity among ICUs. Reported results from their analyses based on cause-specific hazards and on sub-hazards of the cumulative incidence function were indicative of lack of proportionality of these hazards over time. Here, we argue that proportionality of hazards can be problematic in competing-risk problems and analyses must consider time by covariate interactions as a default. Moreover, since hazards in competing risks make it difficult to disentangle the effects of frequency and timing of the competing events, their interpretation can be murky. Use of mixtures of flexible and succinct parametric time-to-event models for competing risks permits disentanglement of the frequency and timing at the price of requiring stronger data and a higher number of parameters. We used data from a clinical trial on fluid management strategies for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome to support our recommendations.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 28 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 6 21%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 11%
Lecturer 2 7%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 5 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 64%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Philosophy 1 4%
Mathematics 1 4%
Unknown 6 21%
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 18 August 2014.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,467
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,066
of 241,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#122
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 241,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.