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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
Title |
Comparison of risk prediction scoring systems for ward patients: a retrospective nested case-control study
|
---|---|
Published in |
Critical Care, June 2014
|
DOI | 10.1186/cc13947 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Shun Yu, Sharon Leung, Moonseong Heo, Graciela J Soto, Ronak T Shah, Sampath Gunda, Michelle Ng Gong |
Abstract |
The rising prevalence of rapid response teams has led to a demand for risk-stratification tools that can estimate a ward patient's risk of clinical deterioration and subsequent need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Finding such a risk-stratification tool is crucial for maximizing the utility of rapid response teams. This study compares the ability of nine risk prediction scores in detecting clinical deterioration among non-ICU ward patients. We also measured each score serially to characterize how these scores changed with time. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 40% |
United States | 1 | 20% |
Italy | 1 | 20% |
Spain | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 40% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Members of the public | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | <1% |
Brazil | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 129 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 19 | 15% |
Researcher | 16 | 12% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 12% |
Student > Bachelor | 11 | 8% |
Student > Postgraduate | 11 | 8% |
Other | 29 | 22% |
Unknown | 29 | 22% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 60 | 46% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 10% |
Engineering | 9 | 7% |
Computer Science | 6 | 5% |
Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 2% |
Other | 7 | 5% |
Unknown | 34 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,599,159
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,804
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,844
of 242,710 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#85
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 242,710 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.