↓ Skip to main content

Combined use of serum (1,3)-β-d-glucan and procalcitonin for the early differential diagnosis between candidaemia and bacteraemia in intensive care units

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, July 2017
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
37 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Combined use of serum (1,3)-β-d-glucan and procalcitonin for the early differential diagnosis between candidaemia and bacteraemia in intensive care units
Published in
Critical Care, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1763-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniele Roberto Giacobbe, Malgorzata Mikulska, Mario Tumbarello, Elisa Furfaro, Marzia Spadaro, Angela Raffaella Losito, Alessio Mesini, Gennaro De Pascale, Anna Marchese, Marco Bruzzone, Paolo Pelosi, Michele Mussap, Alexandre Molin, Massimo Antonelli, Brunella Posteraro, Maurizio Sanguinetti, Claudio Viscoli, Valerio Del Bono, on behalf of ISGRI-SITA (Italian Study Group on Resistant Infections of the Società Italiana Terapia Antinfettiva)

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the combined performance of serum (1,3)-β-D-glucan (BDG) and procalcitonin (PCT) for the differential diagnosis between candidaemia and bacteraemia in three intensive care units (ICUs) in two large teaching hospitals in Italy. From June 2014 to December 2015, all adult patients admitted to the ICU who had a culture-proven candidaemia or bacteraemia, as well as BDG and PCT measured closely to the time of the index culture, were included in the study. The diagnostic performance of BDG and PCT, used either separately or in combination, was assessed by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-). Changes from pre-test probabilities to post-test probabilities of candidaemia and bacteraemia were inferred from Fagan's nomograms. One hundred and sixty-six patients were included, 73 with candidaemia (44%) and 93 with bacteraemia (56%). When both markers indicated candidaemia (BDG ≥80 pg/ml and PCT <2 ng/ml) they showed higher PPV (96%) compared to 79% and 66% for BDG or PCT alone, respectively. When both markers indicated bacteraemia (BDG <80 pg/ml and PCT ≥2 ng/ml), their NPV for candidaemia was similar to that of BDG used alone (95% vs. 93%). Discordant BDG and PCT results (i.e. one indicating candidaemia and the other bacteraemia) only slightly altered the pre-test probabilities of the two diseases. The combined use of PCT and BDG could be helpful in the diagnostic workflow for critically ill patients with suspected candidaemia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 89 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 18%
Other 11 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Student > Master 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 27 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 45%
Immunology and Microbiology 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 31 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 09 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,787,459
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,589
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,977
of 325,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#35
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 325,228 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 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 65% of its contemporaries.