↓ Skip to main content

Development of a respiratory severity score for hospitalized adults in a high HIV-prevalence setting—South Africa, 2010–2011

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pulmonary Medicine, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Development of a respiratory severity score for hospitalized adults in a high HIV-prevalence setting—South Africa, 2010–2011
Published in
BMC Pulmonary Medicine, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12890-017-0368-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander J. Millman, Adena Greenbaum, Sibongile Walaza, Adam L. Cohen, Michelle J. Groome, Carrie Reed, Meredith McMorrow, Stefano Tempia, Marietjie Venter, Florette K. Treurnicht, Shabir A. Madhi, Cheryl Cohen, Ebrahim Variava

Abstract

Acute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) are a frequent cause of hospitalization and mortality in South Africa; however, existing respiratory severity scores may underestimate mortality risk in HIV-infected adults in resource limited settings. A simple predictive clinical score for low-resource settings could aid healthcare providers in the management of patients hospitalized with LRTI. We analyzed 1,356 LRTI hospitalizations in adults aged ≥18 years enrolled in Severe Acute Respiratory Illness (SARI) surveillance in three South African hospitals from January 2010 to December 2011. Using demographic and clinical data at admission, we evaluated potential risk factors for in-hospital mortality. We evaluated three existing respiratory severity scores, CURB-65, CRB-65, and Classification Tree Analysis (CTA) Score assessing for discrimination and calibration. We then developed a new respiratory severity score using a multivariable logistic regression model for in-hospital mortality and assigned points to risk factors based on the coefficients in the multivariable model. Finally we evaluated the model statistically using bootstrap resampling techniques. Of the 1,356 patients hospitalized with LRTI, 101 (7.4%) died while hospitalized. The CURB-65, CRB-65, and CTA scores had poor calibration and demonstrated low discrimination with c-statistics of 0.594, 0.548, and 0.569 respectively. Significant risk factors for in-hospital mortality included age ≥ 45 years (A), confusion on admission (C), HIV-infection (H), and serum blood urea nitrogen >7 mmol/L (U), which were used to create the seven-point ACHU clinical predictor score. In-hospital mortality, stratified by ACHU score was: score ≤1, 2.4%, score 2, 6.4%, score 3, 11.9%, and score ≥ 4, 29.3%. Final models showed good discrimination (c-statistic 0.789) and calibration (chi-square 1.6, Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit p-value = 0.904) and discriminated well in the bootstrap sample (average optimism of 0.003). Existing clinical predictive scores underestimated mortality in a low resource setting with a high HIV burden. The ACHU score incorporates a simple set a risk factors that can accurately stratify patients ≥18 years of age with LRTI by in-hospital mortality risk. This score can quantify in-hospital mortality risk in an HIV-endemic, resource-limited setting with limited clinical information and if used to facilitate timely treatment may improve clinical outcomes.

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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 7 14%
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Other 12 24%
Unknown 11 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 13 25%
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 01 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,622,789
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#605
of 2,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,737
of 424,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pulmonary Medicine
#15
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 2,030 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. 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 424,448 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.