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 modified SAVE score: predicting survival using urgent veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation within 24 hours of arrival at the emergency department
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-016-1520-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wei-Cheng Chen, Kuo-Yang Huang, Chih-Wei Yao, Cing-Feng Wu, Shinn-Jye Liang, Chia-Hsiang Li, Chih-Yeh Tu, Hung-Jen Chen |
| Abstract |
Although many risk models have been tested in patients who undergo extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, few have been assessed for patients who received veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support in the emergency department (ED). This study aimed to successfully predict outcomes of patients with cardiac or noncardiac failure who received VA-ECMO in the ED within 24 hours of arrival at the ED. This retrospective, observational cohort study included 154 patients, who were classified as cardiac (n = 127) and noncardiac (n = 27) patients and received VA-ECMO within 24 hours after arrival at the China Medical University Hospital ED in Taiwan between January 2009 and September 2014. We recorded mechanical ventilation settings, arterial blood gases, laboratory parameters including plasma lactate level, requirement of catecholamines, and risk scores at time of ECMO initiation. ECMO and mechanical ventilation support duration, length of stay in the hospital, and 90-day mortality data were also examined. The overall mortality rate was 64.9 %. We used "survival after veno-arterial ECMO (SAVE)" scores to assess survival prediction in survival and nonsurvival groups, which was statistically different (-3.2 vs. -8.3, p <0.001). According to multivariate Cox proportional regression of survival, lactate (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.01, 95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.01, p <0.001) and SAVE score (HR = 0.92, [95 % CI, 0.88-0.96], p = 0.001) were independent predictors of outcome. Excellent discrimination (area under curve (AUC) = 0.843) was observed when lactate and SAVE score were combined, which we referred to as "the modified SAVE score." Modified SAVE scores improved outcome prediction for patients who underwent urgent VA-ECMO in the ED. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 5 | 19% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 12% |
| Mexico | 2 | 8% |
| United States | 2 | 8% |
| Malaysia | 2 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Italy | 1 | 4% |
| Turkey | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 31% |
| Scientists | 3 | 12% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 101 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Other | 22 | 22% |
| Unknown | 27 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 55 | 54% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 7% |
| Engineering | 6 | 6% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 28 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,517,701
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,179
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,261
of 323,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#48
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 323,021 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.