↓ Skip to main content

Prospective evaluation of an automated method to identify patients with severe sepsis or septic shock in the emergency department

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Emergency Medicine, 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 (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 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
Prospective evaluation of an automated method to identify patients with severe sepsis or septic shock in the emergency department
Published in
BMC Emergency Medicine, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12873-016-0095-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel M. Brown, Jason Jones, Kathryn Gibb Kuttler, Roger K. Keddington, Todd L. Allen, Peter Haug

Abstract

Sepsis is an often-fatal syndrome resulting from severe infection. Rapid identification and treatment are critical for septic patients. We therefore developed a probabilistic model to identify septic patients in the emergency department (ED). We aimed to produce a model that identifies 80 % of sepsis patients, with no more than 15 false positive alerts per day, within one hour of ED admission, using routine clinical data. We developed the model using retrospective data for 132,748 ED encounters (549 septic), with manual chart review to confirm cases of severe sepsis or septic shock from January 2006 through December 2008. A naïve Bayes model was used to select model features, starting with clinician-proposed candidate variables, which were then used to calculate the probability of sepsis. We evaluated the accuracy of the resulting model in 93,733 ED encounters from April 2009 through June 2010. The final model included mean blood pressure, temperature, age, heart rate, and white blood cell count. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the continuous predictor model was 0.953. The binary alert achieved 76.4 % sensitivity with a false positive rate of 4.7 %. We developed and validated a probabilistic model to identify sepsis early in an ED encounter. Despite changes in process, organizational focus, and the H1N1 influenza pandemic, our model performed adequately in our validation cohort, suggesting that it will be generalizable.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 101 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 29 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Student > Master 10 10%
Researcher 10 10%
Other 5 5%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 23 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 29 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Computer Science 4 4%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 22 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 30 August 2016.
All research outputs
#5,899,753
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Emergency Medicine
#244
of 781 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,296
of 347,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Emergency Medicine
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 781 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 347,201 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.