↓ Skip to main content

External validation of a prehospital risk score for critical illness

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
External validation of a prehospital risk score for critical illness
Published in
Critical Care, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1408-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel R. Kievlan, Christian Martin-Gill, Jeremy M. Kahn, Clifton W. Callaway, Donald M. Yealy, Derek C. Angus, Christopher W. Seymour

Abstract

Identification of critically ill patients during prehospital care could facilitate early treatment and aid in the regionalization of critical care. Tools to consistently identify those in the field with or at higher risk of developing critical illness do not exist. We sought to validate a prehospital critical illness risk score that uses objective clinical variables in a contemporary cohort of geographically and temporally distinct prehospital encounters. We linked prehospital encounters at 21 emergency medical services (EMS) agencies to inpatient electronic health records at nine hospitals in southwestern Pennsylvania from 2010 to 2012. The primary outcome was critical illness during hospitalization, defined as an intensive care unit stay with delivery of organ support (mechanical ventilation or vasopressor use). We calculated the prehospital risk score using demographics and first vital signs from eligible EMS encounters, and we tested the association between score variables and critical illness using multivariable logistic regression. Discrimination was assessed using the AUROC curve, and calibration was determined by plotting observed versus expected events across score values. Operating characteristics were calculated at score thresholds. Among 42,550 nontrauma, non-cardiac arrest adult EMS patients, 1926 (4.5 %) developed critical illness during hospitalization. We observed moderate discrimination of the prehospital critical illness risk score (AUROC 0.73, 95 % CI 0.72-0.74) and adequate calibration based on observed versus expected plots. At a score threshold of 2, sensitivity was 0.63 (95 % CI 0.61-0.75), specificity was 0.73 (95 % CI 0.72-0.73), negative predictive value was 0.98 (95 % CI 0.98-0.98), and positive predictive value was 0.10 (95 % CI 0.09-0.10). The risk score performance was greater with alternative definitions of critical illness, including in-hospital mortality (AUROC 0.77, 95 % CI 0.7 -0.78). In an external validation cohort, a prehospital risk score using objective clinical data had moderate discrimination for critical illness during hospitalization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 81 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 20%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Other 6 7%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 17 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 18%
Engineering 7 9%
Computer Science 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 21 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 2016.
All research outputs
#5,211,314
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,387
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,711
of 369,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#83
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 369,331 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.