↓ Skip to main content

Hospitalization for community-acquired febrile urinary tract infection: validation and impact assessment of a clinical prediction rule

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Hospitalization for community-acquired febrile urinary tract infection: validation and impact assessment of a clinical prediction rule
Published in
BMC Infectious Diseases, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12879-017-2509-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janneke E. Stalenhoef, Willize E. van der Starre, Albert M. Vollaard, Ewout W. Steyerberg, Nathalie M. Delfos, Eliane M.S. Leyten, Ted Koster, Hans C. Ablij, Jan W. van’t Wout, Jaap T. van Dissel, Cees van Nieuwkoop

Abstract

There is a lack of severity assessment tools to identify adults presenting with febrile urinary tract infection (FUTI) at risk for complicated outcome and guide admission policy. We aimed to validate the Prediction Rule for Admission policy in Complicated urinary Tract InfeCtion LEiden (PRACTICE), a modified form of the pneumonia severity index, and to subsequentially assess its use in clinical practice. A prospective observational multicenter study for model validation (2004-2009), followed by a multicenter controlled clinical trial with stepped wedge cluster-randomization for impact assessment (2010-2014), with a follow up of 3 months. Paricipants were 1157 consecutive patients with a presumptive diagnosis of acute febrile UTI (787 in validation cohort and 370 in the randomized trial), enrolled at emergency departments of 7 hospitals and 35 primary care centers in the Netherlands. The clinical prediction rule contained 12 predictors of complicated course. In the randomized trial the PRACTICE included guidance on hospitalization for high risk (>100 points) and home discharge for low risk patients (<75 points), in the control period the standard policy regarding hospital admission was applied. Main outcomes were effectiveness of the clinical prediction rule, as measured by primary hospital admission rate, and its safety, as measured by the rate of low-risk patients who needed to be hospitalized for FUTI after initial home-based treatment, and 30-day mortality. A total of 370 patients were included in the randomized trial, 237 in the control period and 133 in the intervention period. Use of PRACTICE significantly reduced the primary hospitalization rate (from 219/237, 92%, in the control group to 96/133, 72%, in the intervention group, p < 0.01). The secondary hospital admission rate after initial outpatient treatment was 6% in control patients and 27% in intervention patients (1/17 and 10/37; p < 0.001). Although the proposed PRACTICE prediction rule is associated with a lower number of hospital admissions of patients presenting to the ED with presumptive febrile urinary tract infection, futher improvement is necessary to reduce the occurrence of secondary hospital admissions. NTR4480 http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4480 , registered retrospectively 25 mrt 2014 (during enrollment of subjects).

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 16%
Other 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Lecturer 6 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 33 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Computer Science 1 1%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 1%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 38 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 June 2017.
All research outputs
#19,078,639
of 23,642,687 outputs
Outputs from BMC Infectious Diseases
#5,724
of 7,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,381
of 318,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Infectious Diseases
#129
of 173 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,642,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 318,159 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 173 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.