↓ Skip to main content

Prehospital identification of trauma patients with early acute coagulopathy and massive bleeding: results of a prospective non-interventional clinical trial evaluating the Trauma Induced Coagulopathy…

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 2014
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 (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
Prehospital identification of trauma patients with early acute coagulopathy and massive bleeding: results of a prospective non-interventional clinical trial evaluating the Trauma Induced Coagulopathy Clinical Score (TICCS)
Published in
Critical Care, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0648-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin L Tonglet, Jean Marc Minon, Laurence Seidel, Jean Louis Poplavsky, Michel Vergnion

Abstract

IntroductionIdentifying patients in need for Damage Control Resuscitation (DCR) early after trauma, is pivotal for adequate management of their critical condition. Several trauma-scoring systems have been developed to identify such patients but most of them are not simple enough to be used in the pre-hospital settings at the early post-traumatic phase. The Trauma Induced Coagulopathy Clinical Score (TICCS) is an easy-to-measure and strictly clinical trauma score developed to meet this medical need.MethodsTICCS is a 3-item clinical score (range 0 to 18) based on the assessment of general severity, blood pressure and extent of body injury and calculated by paramedics on site for patients with severe trauma. This non-interventional prospective study was designed to assess the ability of TICCS to discern patients in need for DCR. These patients were patients with Early Acute Coagulopathy of Trauma (EACT), haemorrhagic shock, massive transfusion (MT) and surgical or endovascular haemostasis during hospitalization. Diagnosis of EACT was assessed by both thromboelastometry and conventional coagulation tests.ResultsDuring 18 months, 89 severe trauma patients admitted to the general emergency unit were enrolled in the study but seven were excluded for protocol violation. Of the 82 patients, eight needed DCR and 74 did not. Using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, TICCS proved to be a powerful discriminant test (area under the curve =0.98; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.0). A cut-off of 10 on the TICCS scale provided the best balance between sensitivity (100%; 95%CI: 53.9 to 100) and specificity (95.9%; 95%CI: 88.2 to 99.2). The positive predictive value was 72.7% and the negative predictive value 100.0%.ConclusionTICCS can be easily and rapidly measured on the site of trauma by paramedics. In this study of blunt trauma patients, TICCS was able to discriminate between patients with and without need for DCR. TICCS on-site evaluation should allow initiation of optimal care immediately upon hospital admission of patients with severe trauma in need of DCR. In-depth validation of TICCS though requires a larger multicenter prospective study.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT02132208 Registered 6 May 2014.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 105 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 18%
Other 17 16%
Researcher 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 27 25%
Unknown 12 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 65%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 10%
Psychology 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 14 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 02 December 2014.
All research outputs
#543,535
of 5,036,026 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#520
of 2,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,068
of 172,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#42
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,036,026 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,698 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 172,426 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.