↓ Skip to main content

Clinical determinants of the severity of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS): a systematic review and meta-analysis

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
103 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 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
Clinical determinants of the severity of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS): a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3881-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryota Matsuyama, Hiroshi Nishiura, Satoshi Kutsuna, Kayoko Hayakawa, Norio Ohmagari

Abstract

While the risk of severe complications of Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) and its determinants have been explored in previous studies, a systematic analysis of published articles with different designs and populations has yet to be conducted. The present study aimed to systematically review the risk of death associated with MERS as well as risk factors for associated complications. PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for clinical and epidemiological studies on confirmed cases of MERS. Eligible articles reported clinical outcomes, especially severe complications or death associated with MERS. Risks of admission to intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation and death were estimated. Subsequently, potential associations between MERS-associated death and age, sex, underlying medical conditions and study design were explored. A total of 25 eligible articles were identified. The case fatality risk ranged from 14.5 to 100%, with the pooled estimate at 39.1%. The risks of ICU admission and mechanical ventilation ranged from 44.4 to 100% and from 25.0 to 100%, with pooled estimates at 78.2 and 73.0%, respectively. These risks showed a substantial heterogeneity among the identified studies, and appeared to be the highest in case studies focusing on ICU cases. We identified older age, male sex and underlying medical conditions, including diabetes mellitus, renal disease, respiratory disease, heart disease and hypertension, as clinical predictors of death associated with MERS. In ICU case studies, the expected odds ratios (OR) of death among patients with underlying heart disease or renal disease to patients without such comorbidities were 0.6 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.1, 4.3) and 0.6 (95% CI: 0.0, 2.1), respectively, while the ORs were 3.8 (95% CI: 3.4, 4.2) and 2.4 (95% CI: 2.0, 2.9), respectively, in studies with other types of designs. The heterogeneity for the risk of death and severe manifestations was substantially high among the studies, and varying study designs was one of the underlying reasons for this heterogeneity. A statistical estimation of the risk of MERS death and identification of risk factors must be conducted, particularly considering the study design and potential biases associated with case detection and diagnosis.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 150 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 17%
Student > Master 25 17%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Other 12 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 34 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 5 3%
Other 23 15%
Unknown 44 29%
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 April 2020.
All research outputs
#4,054,598
of 22,965,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#4,506
of 14,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,920
of 417,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#52
of 191 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,965,074 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 14,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. 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 417,253 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 191 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 72% of its contemporaries.