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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Copenhagen Triage Algorithm: a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13049-016-0312-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rasmus Bo Hasselbalch, Louis Lind Plesner, Mia Pries-Heje, Lisbet Ravn, Morten Lind, Rasmus Greibe, Birgitte Nybo Jensen, Lars S. Rasmussen, Kasper Iversen |
| Abstract |
Crowding in the emergency department (ED) is a well-known problem resulting in an increased risk of adverse outcomes. Effective triage might counteract this problem by identifying the sickest patients and ensuring early treatment. In the last two decades, systematic triage has become the standard in ED's worldwide. However, triage models are also time consuming, supported by limited evidence and could potentially be of more harm than benefit. The aim of this study is to develop a quicker triage model using data from a large cohort of unselected ED patients and evaluate if this new model is non-inferior to an existing triage model in a prospective randomized trial. The Copenhagen Triage Algorithm (CTA) study is a prospective two-center, cluster-randomized, cross-over, non-inferiority trial comparing CTA to the Danish Emergency Process Triage (DEPT). We include patients ≥16 years (n = 50.000) admitted to the ED in two large acute hospitals. Centers are randomly assigned to perform either CTA or DEPT triage first and then use the other triage model in the last time period. The CTA stratifies patients into 5 acuity levels in two steps. First, a scoring chart based on vital values is used to classify patients in an immediate category. Second, a clinical assessment by the ED nurse can alter the result suggested by the score up to two categories up or one down. The primary end-point is 30-day mortality and secondary end-points are length of stay, time to treatment, admission to intensive care unit, and readmission within 30 days. If proven non-inferior to standard DEPT triage, CTA will be a faster and simpler triage model that is still able to detect the critically ill. Simplifying triage will lessen the burden for the ED staff and possibly allow faster treatment. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02698319 , registered 24. of February 2016, retrospectively registered. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Poland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 74 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 20 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 21 | 28% |
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 22 March 2019.
All research outputs
#12,674,864
of 22,893,031 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#711
of 1,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,190
of 320,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#14
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,893,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,260 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 320,105 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.