↓ Skip to main content

Risk stratification and prognostic performance of the predisposition, infection, response, and organ dysfunction (PIRO) scoring system in septic patients in the emergency department: a cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 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
Risk stratification and prognostic performance of the predisposition, infection, response, and organ dysfunction (PIRO) scoring system in septic patients in the emergency department: a cohort study
Published in
Critical Care, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/cc13832
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yun-Xia Chen, Chun-Sheng Li

Abstract

The predisposition, infection, response and organ dysfunction (PIRO) staging system was designed as a stratification tool to deal with the inherent heterogeneity of septic patients. The present study was conducted to assess the performance of PIRO in predicting multiple organ dysfunction (MOD), intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 28-day mortality in septic patients in the emergency department (ED), and to compare this scoring system with the Mortality in Emergency Department Sepsis (MEDS) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) scores.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 89 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 19%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 7 8%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 16 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Engineering 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 19 21%

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 31 October 2017.
All research outputs
#6,405,163
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,603
of 6,044 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,024
of 305,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#105
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,044 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 305,246 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.