↓ 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 (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 62 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 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 56 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Researcher 6 10%
Other 16 26%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 65%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 11 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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
#1,250,384
of 15,641,217 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,226
of 4,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,931
of 306,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#44
of 229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,641,217 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,941 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. 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 306,745 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 229 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.