↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence, aetiology, treatment and outcomes of shock in children admitted to Kenyan hospitals

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 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
Prevalence, aetiology, treatment and outcomes of shock in children admitted to Kenyan hospitals
Published in
BMC Medicine, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0728-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

George Mbevi, Philip Ayieko, Grace Irimu, Samuel Akech, Mike English, on behalf of the Clinical Information Network authors

Abstract

Shock may complicate several acute childhood illnesses in hospitals within low-income countries and has a high case fatality. Hypovolemic shock secondary to diarrhoea/dehydration and septic shock are thought to be common, but there are few reliable data on prevalence or treatment that differ for the two major forms of shock. Examining prevalence and treatment practices has become important since reports suggest high risks from liberal use of fluid boluses in African children. The present study aims to estimate the prevalence, fluid management practices and outcomes of shock among hospitalised children. We analysed paediatric in-patient data collected using discharge case record review between October 2013 and February 2016 from 14 hospitals in Kenya which are part of a network (referred to as the Clinical Information Network) using similar tools for standardised clinical records with care directed by the local clinical team leaders. Data are from a period after dissemination of national guidance seeking to limit use of bolus fluids. A total of 74,402 children were admitted between October 2013 and February 2016. Children aged < 30 days or > 5 years, with severe acute malnutrition, surgical/burns, or cases with pre-defined minimum data sets were excluded from analysis. This resulted in 42,937 patients meeting the inclusion criteria. Prevalence of clinically diagnosed shock was 1.5 % (n = 622) and overall bolus use was 0.9 % (n = 366); 41 % (256/622) of children with clinically diagnosed shock did not receive a fluid bolus (but had a fluid plan for management of dehydration). Identified cases appeared mostly to be hypovolaemic shock secondary to dehydration/diarrhoea (94 %, 582/622), with a high case fatality (34 %, 211/622). Overall mortality for all admitted children was 5 % (2115/42,937) and was 7.9 % (798/10,096) in children with dehydration/diarrhoea. The diagnosis of hypovolaemic shock was nearly always accompanied by additional clinical diagnosis (99 %), most often pneumonia or malaria. Where bolus fluids were used, they were prescribed in accordance with guidelines (isotonic fluid at correct volume) in 92 % of cases. Inappropriate use of bolus fluids to treat milder forms of impaired circulation appeared very rarely. A diagnosis of shock is uncommon at admission and use of fluid bolus is rare in admissions to Kenyan hospitals. A fluid bolus, when prescribed, is mostly used in children with hypovolemic shock secondary to dehydration and case fatality in these cases is high. We found little evidence of liberal use of fluid bolus that might cause harm in a period following dissemination of national guidelines suggesting very strict criteria for fluid bolus use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 135 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Student > Master 16 12%
Student > Postgraduate 14 10%
Other 11 8%
Researcher 10 7%
Other 24 18%
Unknown 42 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 13%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Computer Science 2 1%
Other 4 3%
Unknown 45 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 21 February 2019.
All research outputs
#7,247,083
of 22,901,818 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,565
of 3,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,440
of 270,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#52
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,901,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 270,398 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.