↓ Skip to main content

Simplified prognostic model for critically ill patients in resource limited settings in South Asia

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 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
Simplified prognostic model for critically ill patients in resource limited settings in South Asia
Published in
Critical Care, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1843-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rashan Haniffa, Mavuto Mukaka, Sithum Bandara Munasinghe, Ambepitiyawaduge Pubudu De Silva, Kosala Saroj Amarasiri Jayasinghe, Abi Beane, Nicolette de Keizer, Arjen M. Dondorp

Abstract

Current critical care prognostic models are predominantly developed in high-income countries (HICs) and may not be feasible in intensive care units (ICUs) in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Existing prognostic models cannot be applied without validation in LMICs as the different disease profiles, resource availability, and heterogeneity of the population may limit the transferability of such scores. A major shortcoming in using such models in LMICs is the unavailability of required measurements. This study proposes a simplified critical care prognostic model for use at the time of ICU admission. This was a prospective study of 3855 patients admitted to 21 ICUs from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Sri Lanka who were aged 16 years and over and followed to ICU discharge. Variables captured included patient age, admission characteristics, clinical assessments, laboratory investigations, and treatment measures. Multivariate logistic regression was used to develop three models for ICU mortality prediction: model 1 with clinical, laboratory, and treatment variables; model 2 with clinical and laboratory variables; and model 3, a purely clinical model. Internal validation based on bootstrapping (1000 samples) was used to calculate discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)) and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow C-Statistic; higher values indicate poorer calibration). Comparison was made with the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II models. Model 1 recorded the respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), blood urea, haemoglobin, mechanical ventilation, and vasopressor use on ICU admission. Model 2, named TropICS (Tropical Intensive Care Score), included emergency surgery, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, GCS, blood urea, and haemoglobin. Model 3 included respiratory rate, emergency surgery, and GCS. AUC was 0.818 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.800-0.835) for model 1, 0.767 (0.741-0.792) for TropICS, and 0.725 (0.688-0.762) for model 3. The Hosmer-Lemeshow C-Statistic p values were less than 0.05 for models 1 and 3 and 0.18 for TropICS. In comparison, when APACHE II and SAPS II were applied to the same dataset, AUC was 0.707 (0.688-0.726) and 0.714 (0.695-0.732) and the C-Statistic was 124.84 (p < 0.001) and 1692.14 (p < 0.001), respectively. This paper proposes TropICS as the first multinational critical care prognostic model developed in a non-HIC setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 20%
Student > Master 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 23 22%
Unknown 22 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 26 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
#3,318,935
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,676
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,742
of 335,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#46
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 335,962 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.