↓ Skip to main content

Decision support tool for differential diagnosis of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) vs Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema (CPE): a prospective validation and meta-analysis

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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Decision support tool for differential diagnosis of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) vs Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema (CPE): a prospective validation and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0659-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher N Schmickl, Sonal Pannu, Mazen O Al-Qadi, Anas Alsara, Rahul Kashyap, Rajanigandha Dhokarh, Vitaly Herasevich, Ognjen Gajic

Abstract

IntroductionWe recently presented a prediction score providing decision support with the often-challenging early differential diagnosis of acute lung injury (ALI) vs cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE). To facilitate clinical adoption, our objective was to prospectively validate its performance in an independent cohort.MethodsOver 9 months, adult patients consecutively admitted to any intensive care unit of a tertiary-care center developing acute pulmonary edema were identified in real-time using validated electronic surveillance. For eligible patients, predictors were abstracted from medical records within 48h of the alert. Post-hoc expert review blinded to the prediction score established gold standard diagnosis.ResultsOf 1,516 patients identified by electronic surveillance, data were abstracted for 249 patients (93% within 48h of disease onset), of which expert review (kappa 0.93) classified 72 as ALI, 73 as CPE and excluded 104 as ¿other¿. With an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81 (95%-Confidence Interval =0.73 to 0.88) the prediction score showed similar discrimination as in prior cohorts (development AUC =0.81, P =0.91; retrospective validation AUC =0.80, P =0.92). Hosmer-Lemeshow test was significant (P =0.01), but across eight previously defined score ranges probabilities of ALI vs CPE were the same as in the development cohort (P =0.60). Results were the same when comparing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS, Berlin definition) vs CPE.ConclusionThe clinical prediction score reliably differentiates ARDS/ALI vs CPE. Pooled results provide precise estimates of the score¿s performance which can be used to screen patient populations or to assess the probability of ALI/ARDS vs CPE in specific patients. The score may thus facilitate early inclusion into research studies and expedite prompt treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Brazil 2 3%
Canada 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Unknown 62 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Other 17 25%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Engineering 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 15 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 06 April 2017.
All research outputs
#2,388,942
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,093
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,023
of 369,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#26
of 153 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 369,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 153 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.