↓ Skip to main content

Does ventilator-associated event surveillance detect ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care units? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, October 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 (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 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
Does ventilator-associated event surveillance detect ventilator-associated pneumonia in intensive care units? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1506-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yunzhou Fan, Fang Gao, Yanyan Wu, Jie Zhang, Ming Zhu, Lijuan Xiong

Abstract

Ventilator-associated event (VAE) is a new surveillance paradigm for monitoring complications in mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICUs). The National Healthcare Safety Network replaced traditional ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) surveillance with VAE surveillance in 2013. The objective of this study was to assess the consistency between VAE surveillance and traditional VAP surveillance. We systematically searched electronic reference databases for articles describing VAE and VAP in ICUs. Pooled VAE prevalence, pooled estimates (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV)) of VAE for the detection of VAP, and pooled estimates (weighted mean difference (WMD) and odds ratio ([OR)) of risk factors for VAE compared to VAP were calculated. From 2191 screened titles, 18 articles met our inclusion criteria, representing 61,489 patients receiving mechanical ventilation at ICUs in eight countries. The pooled prevalence rates of ventilator-associated conditions (VAC), infection-related VAC (IVAC), possible VAP, probable VAP, and traditional VAP were 13.8 %, 6.4 %, 1.1 %, 0.9 %, and 11.9 %, respectively. Pooled sensitivity and PPV of each VAE type for VAP detection did not exceed 50 %, while pooled specificity and NPV exceeded 80 %. Compared with VAP, pooled ORs of in-hospital death were 1.49 for VAC and 1.76 for IVAC; pooled WMDs of hospital length of stay were -4.27 days for VAC and -5.86 days for IVAC; and pooled WMDs of ventilation duration were -2.79 days for VAC and -2.89 days for IVAC. VAE surveillance missed many cases of VAP, and the population characteristics identified by the two surveillance paradigms differed. VAE surveillance does not accurately detect cases of traditional VAP in ICUs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 147 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 15%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Postgraduate 18 12%
Other 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 30 20%
Unknown 36 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 11%
Engineering 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 39 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 29 May 2017.
All research outputs
#3,977,633
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,802
of 6,065 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,460
of 313,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#60
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,065 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 313,854 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.